httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Pane <brian.p...@cnet.com>
Subject Re: Performance comparison for worker, leader/follower, and threadpool MPMs
Date Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:05:03 GMT
Austin Gonyou wrote:

>>httpd listening on one port:
>>               Requests/  Mean request  CPU     CPU
>>  MPM           second     time (ms)    load    utilization
>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>Threadpool        854      55.5         4.8     52%
>>Leader/follower   957      39.5         6.8     72%
>>Worker            892      31.4         7.0     70%
>>Prefork           899      32.9         7.3     76%
>>
>
>Given these numbers, it seems that Threadpool is not too shabby, though
>the Request Time(ms) is much higher than the others, the CPU utilization
>is not and load is not. In terms of increasing capacity without
>replacing hardware, over time, that's pretty important.
>
>Given that info, is there a way to do:
>1. tweak threadpool so that it uses slightly more CPU, but takes less
>time, not to exceed 60% cpu.
>

I haven't found a way to do this yet, but:

>2. Tweak leader/follower to use less CPU, sub 60%, generate less load
>,sub 5, and maintain or lower it's response time?
>

Since the switch from mutexes to atomic ops on leader/follower, I'm
seeing slightly lower mean response times (on par with worker and
prefork).  The CPU utilization hasn't dropped, but it's still competitive
with prefork.

>The main reason I'm asking is that if worker is to be replaced, then how
>much longer will it be till Apache 2.0, on *nix is really ready to rock
>with a threaded model?
>

Performance-wise, I think leader/follower might be there already (based
on its performance compared to prefork).  But it needs more testing.

--Brian



Mime
View raw message