httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rasmus Lerdorf <ras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Apache 2.0 Numbers
Date Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:53:08 GMT
> * Saying "turn on buffering" is, IMHO, a reasonable solution if you
>   can make buffering the default in PHP under httpd-2.0.  Otherwise,
>   you'll surprise a lot of users who have been running with the default
>   non-buffered output using 1.3 and find that all their applications
>   are far slower with 2.0.

We could turn on buffering for 2.0.  I just verified that this does indeed
create a single 1024-byte bucket for my 1024-byte file test case.  And
combined with compiling PHP non-threaded for the prefork mpm the result
is:

Concurrency Level:      5
Time taken for tests:   115.406395 seconds
Complete requests:      50000
Failed requests:        0
Write errors:           0
Keep-Alive requests:    0
Total transferred:      63250000 bytes
HTML transferred:       51200000 bytes
Requests per second:    433.25 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request:       11.541 [ms] (mean)
Time per request:       2.308 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate:          535.21 [Kbytes/sec] received

Up from 397 requests/second but still nowhere near the 615 requests/second
for Apache 1.3.  But, doing this buffering internally in PHP and then
again in Apache doesn't seem efficient to me, and the numbers would seem
to reflect this inefficiency.

> * A better solution, though, would be to have the PHP filter generate
>   flush buckets (in nonbuffered mode) only when it reaches a "<%" or
>   "%>".  I.e., if the input file has 20KB of static text before the
>   first embedded script, send that entire 20KB in a bucket, and don't
>   try to split it into 400-byte segments.  If mod_php is in nonbuffered
>   mode, send an apr_bucket_flush right after it.  (There's a precedent
>   for this approach: one of the ways in  which we managed to get good
>   performance from mod_include in 2.0 was to stop trying to split large
>   static blocks into small chunks.  We were originally concerned about
>   the amount of time it would take for the mod_include lexer to run
>   through large blocks of static content, but it hasn't been a problem
>   in practice.)
>
> From a mod_php perspective, would either of those be a viable solution?

I think Andi is working on this.  But, just to test the theory, I modified
the PHP lexer to use larger chunks.  1024 in this case.  So, the 1k.php
test case which looks like this:

<html>
<head><title>Test Document.</title>
<body>
<h1>Test Document.</h1>
<p>
<?='This is a 1024 byte HTML file.'?><br />
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa<br />
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb<br />
cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc<br />
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd<br />
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee<br />
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff<br />
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg<br />
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh<br />
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii<br />
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj<br />
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk<br />
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll<br />
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm<br />
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn<br />
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo<br />
pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp<br />
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq<br />
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr<br />
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss<br />
tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt<br />
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu<br />
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv<br />
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww<br />
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br />
</p>
</body>
</html>

Was split up into 3 buckets.

1. 78 bytes containing:

<html>
<head><title>Test Document.</title>
<body>
<h1>Test Document.</h1>
<p>

2. 30 bytes containing (because this was dynamically generated)
This is a 1024 byte HTML file.

3. A 916 byte bucket containing the rest of the static text.

Result:

Concurrency Level:      5
Time taken for tests:   124.456357 seconds
Complete requests:      50000
Failed requests:        0
Write errors:           0
Keep-Alive requests:    0
Total transferred:      63250000 bytes
HTML transferred:       51200000 bytes
Requests per second:    401.75 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request:       12.446 [ms] (mean)
Time per request:       2.489 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate:          496.29 [Kbytes/sec] received


So slower than the single 1024 byte bucket and actually also slower than
the 400-byte case, so an invalid test.  There are probably some other
memory-allocation changes I would need to make to make this a valid test.

-Rasmus


Mime
View raw message