Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 50719 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2001 21:56:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 50698 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2001 21:56:56 -0000 From: "Victor J. Orlikowski" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15228.16811.269589.434751@critterling.garfield.home> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:56:59 -0400 To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Performance numbers..... ;( X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under Emacs 20.7.1 Reply-To: v.j.orlikowski@gte.net X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 684 Hi all, Was running some performance tests on AIX... And oddities popped up between 1.3 and 2.0 (latest CVS of both). Requests/sec. no keepalive keepalive 2.0 - prefork 420 590 2.0 - threaded 390 580 1.3 420 700 (Semi) Good news: Without keepalives, prefork performance in 2.0 matches 1.3. Threaded performance comes close. Bad news: 1.3 trashed 2.0 on keepalives. Especially odd is the fact that the threaded and prefork numbers here are *so* close. So, threaded isn't getting trounced too badly, currently. But keepalive performance in 2.0 has me worried. Anyone have any ideas? Victor -- Victor J. Orlikowski | The Wall is Down, But the Threat Remains! ================================================================== v.j.orlikowski@gte.net | orlikowski@apache.org | vjo@us.ibm.com