httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: Benchmark: 29 vs 30
Date Sat, 22 Dec 2001 13:09:05 GMT
Hmm, OK but the headline figures really do look negative.  The jump for page
transaction unsucceful from 20.51% to 34.7%, even if the errors start later,
doesn't really bode well does it?

I assume the test was the same number of requests and so on, so I'd consider
a reduction in the overall succesful number of completions to be a bad
thing, not a good thing??

david
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sander Striker" <striker@apache.org>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 1:02 PM
Subject: RE: Benchmark: 29 vs 30


> > From: David Reid [mailto:dreid@jetnet.co.uk]
> > Sent: 22 December 2001 13:57
>
> > The transaction stats were what jumped out at me - 7% increase in failed
> > connections doesn't sound good to me :(  But, then maybe I'm reading
that
> > wrong?
>
> Which is what I saw first too.  But when I talked to Ian over irc
<snippet>:
>
> [00:22] <IanHolsman> hey.. did you see the benchmark..
> [00:22] <IanHolsman> could you parse it
> [00:22] <sander> Yes, saw it.
> [00:22] <sander> No, could not parse.
> [00:22] <IanHolsman> aah
> [00:23] <IanHolsman> http://webperf.org/a2/caw/29/Current Total HTTP and
TCP Errors vs Load 21-Dec-2001 1215.gif is probably the
> best image
> [00:24] <sander> Under a higher load we get more errors with v30?
> [00:24] <IanHolsman> if you look on v29 errors start happening around 500
users sessions. with v30 they happen at 700
> [00:24] <IanHolsman> no... under a higher load you get less.
> [00:24] <sander> Ah
>
> And this is why I thought this morning: "There must be more people
> having trouble parsing these results...".
>
> > david
>
> Sander
>
>


Mime
View raw message