httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Akins, Brian" <Brian.Ak...@turner.com>
Subject Re: [community] 2.3.0 alpha on October 1?
Date Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:31:58 GMT
On 9/1/08 8:11 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Aug 31, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Bing Swen wrote:
> 
>> 
>> To my knowledge, the "one thread per connection" network i/o model
>> is a
>> suboptimal use
> 
> threads vs. events is certainly not, imo, a finalized debate
> yet with a known winner or loser. Maybe 5-10 years ago events
> had a "clear" advantage but today that is hardly the case...


I have documented my vote on this in the past, but the "async is inherently
faster" looks good on paper, but does not, IMNSHO, measure up in the real
world.  It seems that lighttpd, and others, simply come with a much more
"realistic" default configuration out of the box.

Our latest builds, on some fairly modest hardware, are actually about twice
as "fast" as numbers I posted last time async-vs-threads came up.  Apache
can very easily fill multiple gigE interfaces on modest hardware.  We can
sustain about 45k requests/sec on our build on a dual dual-core system with
a network card that supports Linux NAPI (that made a huge difference).
Without much tuning 35k is pretty easy. (Note: this was very small files,
bcs it's so easy to fill the network interfaces).

Apache is slow is just FUD, plain and simple.  We need to work on getting
things like x-sendfile into stock distribution and pushing the "use fastcgi
for php" type things into the documentation.

(Sorry, put this area is one of my pet peeves.)
-- 
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies


Mime
View raw message