Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 19139 invoked by uid 6000); 14 Apr 1999 03:35:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 19121 invoked from network); 14 Apr 1999 03:35:04 -0000 Received: from sense-sea-megasub-1-222.oz.net (HELO alive.znep.com) (216.39.144.222) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 14 Apr 1999 03:35:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (marcs@localhost) by alive.znep.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA28380 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:36:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcs@znep.com) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:36:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Marc Slemko To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: Holy FUD Batman! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Dean Gaudet wrote: > Oh this is on NT. > > Read the 4th paragraph at that URL. No, the Apache is on Linux. > > Dean > > On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Dean Gaudet wrote: > > > MaxClients 150. > > > > Read the first paragraph at > > http://www.apache.org/docs/misc/perf-tuning.html. They set MaxClients to 290 after recompiling Apache. >From their site: number of threads number of reqs/sec ===================== ===================== 2 12 32 199 64 403 96 601 128 802 160 1,000 192 287 224 68 256 78 288 87 That just doesn't make sense to me. It appears that x threads are running on x/2 systems, with each running two threads. I can't imagine why, on a machine using 960 megs with 290 MaxClients, you would hit that drop at 160. Nothing about the Apache architecture imposes any such limits. Unless it just has to do with the test set and one machine being able to cache the whole thing while the other couldn't. However, without having more details about the behaviour of the machine under such situations (eg. swapping, out of CPU, etc.), it is impossible to tell. Unless it is like SMP issues with 4 processors or something.