Mailing-List: contact test-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:44:40 -0700
From: Aaron Bannert <aaron@clove.org>
To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Pools, possible replacement,
 WAS: RE: [Fwd: brianp patch Quantify results]
Message-ID: <20010824174440.N7084@clove.org>
References: <20010824170837.T17570@ebuilt.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.20.0108241714120.8992-100000@alive.znep.com>
 <20010824174059.Y17570@ebuilt.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20010824174059.Y17570@ebuilt.com>;
 from jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com on Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 05:40:59PM -0700

On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 05:40:59PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 05:21:11PM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > 
> > > If you have the backplane (my guess would be Gigabit Ethernet) to
> > 
> > Well, or just a less powerful server.  The goal isn't the best raw
> > numbers, the goal is comparison.  Granted, that comparison can be
> > different on various sized machines (eg. SMP vs. not, etc.).
> 
> Well, part of the problem is that Sander's pool optimization is 
> intended to benefit MP boxes.  It adds thread-local free-lists - so
> the benefit is probably only noticable on MP boxes under load.
> 
> The problem is that I can't get enough out of our network (with
> the URLs I hit) to see if it improves the performance.  I will
> try to adjust the URLs I hit to see if I can move the bottleneck
> back to the CPU.  
> 
> Any suggestions here?  -- justin

mod_include, PHP -- something dynamic? You just want to CPU-strap
some typical system usage, and then see what the maximum req/sec
throughput is you can get, right?

-aaron