httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From TOKI...@aol.com
Subject Re: Apache 164 percent speed increase
Date Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:58:46 GMT
In a message dated 99-10-13 10:05:51 EDT, you write:

>  We all learned this in our BBS days.  While the data may get to the 
>  client "166% faster", with the extra CPU overhead, I seriously doubt that 
you
>  would be able to process 166% more ACTUAL REQUESTS by enabling gzip
>  compression.

An awful lot has changed since those days. It's amazing to see
the same arguments appear again so many years later. You 
would think the lessons would have been learned. 

Much has also changed since those days particulary with
regard to efficient compression algorithms and better ways
to implement them. Properly implemented... there is actually
a way to IMPROVE server performance AND get the data
there faster. Sounds like magic but it is not. It's called
'good programming' which is getting harder and harder to
find these days.

>  Am I a total moron here?

Absolutely not.... but you... like many others... are simply
'stabbing in the dark' and just 'wondering' whether there
would be a benefit or not. We have decided to make the leap
and we have discovered it IS worthwhile and should/must be done.

> Subj:  Re: Apache 164 percent speed increase
>  Date:    99-10-13 10:05:51 EDT
>  From:    jeff@websitefactory.net (Jeff Johnson)
>  Sender:  new-httpd-owner@apache.org
>  Reply-to:    new-httpd@apache.org
>  To:  Cranstone@worldnet.att.net (Peter J. Cranstone)
>  CC:  new-httpd@apache.org
>  
>  On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 11:34:38PM -0600, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
>  > Anyway, as you can see we actually more than DOUBLE the number of
>  > transactions per second using compression. 21 transactions per second 
> jumped
>  > to 56 or a 166% improvement. "The assertion about saving modem users
>  > bandwidth is ludicrous". What is ludicrous is that statement. I'm going 
to
>  > let you do the math. It's very simple.
>  
>  Not to intrude on this conversation, however, I see two points here:
>  
>  a) gzip compression of pages, if supported seamlessly by clients is
>     both something that should be supported by HTTP and by Apache,
>     because it is a Good Idea (tm).
>  
>  b) However, is the server actually free the handle more requests? 
>     I would believe that the compression of gzip uses much more 
>     CPU time than the compression that is built into the hardware
>     of your modem.  Doesn't the modem try to compress the data again
>     as well?  Because of this, you'll always get a 'higher' throughput
>     rating when transferring, say, a text file when compared to a .ZIP file.
>     
>     We all learned this in our BBS days.  While the data may get to the 
> client
>     "166% faster", with the extra CPU overhead, I seriously doubt that you
>     would be able to process 166% more ACTUAL REQUESTS by enabling gzip
>     compression.
>  
>  Am I a total moron here?

Mime
View raw message