Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-39941-apmail-httpd-dev-archive=httpd.apache.org@httpd.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 11539 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2003 23:52:21 -0000
Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12)
  by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Nov 2003 23:52:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 5502 invoked by uid 500); 16 Nov 2003 23:52:02 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 5462 invoked by uid 500); 16 Nov 2003 23:52:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
list-help: <mailto:dev-help@httpd.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:dev@httpd.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 5449 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2003 23:52:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cn-sfo1-mail-relay1.cnet.cnwk) (206.16.5.38)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Nov 2003 23:52:02 -0000
Received: from holsman.net (carys2k.cnet.cnwk [10.16.102.49] (may be forged))
	by cn-sfo1-mail-relay1.cnet.cnwk (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id
 hAGNq835012619
	for <dev@httpd.apache.org>; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:52:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Spam-Filter: check_local@cn-sfo1-mail-relay1.cnet.cnwk by digitalanswers.org
Message-ID: <3FB80DA8.8090000@holsman.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:52:08 +1100
From: Ian Holsman <lists@holsman.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
 rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: consider reopening 1.3
References: <BAY4-DAV8334PuQirKz000063d4@hotmail.com>
 <Pine.NEB.4.53.0311161310240.28468@rhombus.znep.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0311161446241.1152@thinkpad.lerdorf.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0311161446241.1152@thinkpad.lerdorf.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

> 
> I have always had the feeling that Apache2+prefork was a bit of a 
> second-class citizen.  I have tested it periodically over the past 2 years 
> and it has never gotten anywhere close to Apache1 in performance.  I ran 
> another test of 1.3.29 vs 2.0.48-prefork just now just to make sure I 
> wasn't blowing pure smoke here and here is what I got:
> 
> Apache-1.3.29
> 
> Document Path:          /bench_main.php
> The benchmark itself is a standard little PHP thing I use to test stuff, 
> so it may be that our Apache2Handler for PHP is crap and we aren't smart 
> enough to write a decent Apache2 module.

I don't think it is due to you guys not having smart people rasmus, more 
a question of priorities, your focused on 5.0 right now, and most people 
are doing that. as the general impression I've seen on the php lists is 
that no one is using 2, no one is interested in spending the time in 
getting it to run faster.

maybe a better test would be to re-write your benchmark program in 'c'
and to the 1.3/2.0 module interface directly so you can then do remove 
factors like this out of the equation.

<rant>
I've never seen what use req/sec is on benchmarks.
most people have thier testing machine sitting on the other end of a 
switched 100mbs/1G network and just bang away.
what I see more interesting is:
	- #reqs/sec @ 30% cpu utilization, where the testing machines
	  are on medium-low bandwidth rate limiting
	- possibly where the meltdown point is. ie.. how many concurrent
	  requests can this server takes before it gets unusable (say
	  >1sec response time)
	- cost of a server farm using server X to serve my business.

I belive 2.0 beats 1.3 on these metrics, but like everyone here, Ihave 
no more energy proving/disproving which is faster.. 2.0 works for me, 
and thats all I really care about, not who else is using it.
</rant>
> 
> -Rasmus
>