Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 29839 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jun 2002 17:05:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 29826 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2002 17:05:55 -0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:05:56 +0100 Subject: Re: Apache 2.0 Numbers From: Pier Fumagalli To: , Brian Pane Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N "Rasmus Lerdorf" wrote: > 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. Rasmus... I was chatting with Ryan on IRC today, and in my case (I have a document which is approx 11 Kb long), Apache 2.0.39/worker on Solaris/8-intel actually outperforms Apache 1.3.26 with the same PHP 4.2.1 (well, the one for Apache 2.0 uses Apache2Filter from PHP HEAD)... It's a good 10% faster than 1.3... (If people are interested in numbers, I'll rerun the tests. When RBB told me he expected those results, I /dev/null ed em...) Pier