Message-ID: <372FB551.FBA573E7@alumni.caltech.edu>
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 03:04:49 +0000
From: Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Mindcraft, part II - anyone want to help?
References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9905041435450.3525-100000@pez.hyperreal.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> 
> Mindcraft has a response to the criticisms out there - "OK, help us come
> up with a good benchmark".  Thus:
> 
> http://www.mindcraft.com/openbenchmark.html
> 
> Chris DiBona at VA Research is trying to organize a testing rig - if
> anyone can help from the Apache tuning side of things (Dean?  Cliff?
> Marc?) send him an email at chris@dibona.com.

I've been in touch with Mindcraft, and am collecting my own notes
on tuning issues at http://www.kegel.com/mindcraft_redux.html
It's interesting reading, especially
http://bugs.apache.org/index/full/4268,
which shows the same kind of "Apache gets wedged in a slow state"
behavior Mindcraft found.

Could I bother you folks for a tuning question?  
In a benchmark like Mindcraft's, should Apache's MaxClients be set to
the 
physical number of client threads, or to a higher value?
Don't the server daemons sit around doing a lingering close
for some time after finishing each request?

Thanks,
Dan