httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Holsman <i...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Benchmark: 29 vs 30
Date Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:33:25 GMT
Aaron Bannert wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 02:02:53PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
> 
>>>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
>>
> 
> How are "Unsuccessful" transactions defined? Failed connect()ions, incomplete
> HTTP requests? Invalid data returned?
> 
> -aaron
> 
> 

I think I forgot to mention that there was a core dump in .30.

as far as what a incomplete transaction is, I don't know. (I'll dig up 
the books)

the test was a page fetch of a random page which had 7-10 includes. The 
# of sessions was increased every minute so that by the end of the test 
we had 1,000 open connections. we were getting ~100 connection/second 
for a lot of the time, but the response time & failure rate was getting 
worse as the number of sessions increased. This is probably better seen
if I expand the CPU load RRD graph so it is wider and only for the first 
15 minutes.

both v30 & v29 couldn't handle the load at the end of the test, the 
major difference IMHO was v29 bailed out much sooner than v30

v30 also had a core dump in a weird location, which points to a memory
corruption

http://webperf.org/a2/caw/cpu_comp.html
shows a comparision of server load, and transactions per second.

the chart is a bit funky underneath, but what it shows is that v30
experienced a much lower error rate and higher TPS than v29 did.

The next set of tests I do I will vary the Tranasactions per second.
as I find that easier to understand and explain to people.


Mime
View raw message