Mailing-List: contact test-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:00:21 -0700
From: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com>
To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Pools, possible replacement,
 WAS: RE: [Fwd: brianp patch Quantify results]
Message-ID: <20010825000021.E17570@ebuilt.com>
References: <20010824174647.Z17570@ebuilt.com>
 <Pine.GSO.4.32.0108242145100.4213-100000@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.32.0108242145100.4213-100000@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU>;
 from cliffwoolley@yahoo.com on Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 09:49:45PM -0400

> The t/htdocs/modules/include/*.shtml stuff is probably the best at the
> moment... if you can run those many, many times with a lot of concurrency,
> that'd probably get you somewhere.

Thanks.  I didn't even think of using httpd-test's perl-framework (I'm 
not really familiar with it).  I snarfed in that directory and pointed
flood at big.  Now, I think we're getting somewhere - the CPU is maxed
out.  Cool.

> Throw mod_ssl into the equation and you might get even closer to something
> testable, though it'd arguably be better if the load were pool-use-heavy.

Well, I think with all of the benchmarks flying around, it'd be nice to
agree that "URL X, followed by URL Y, followed by URL Z" is at least
a decent coverage of httpd-2.0 code.  At least for determining relative
merits of code A vs. code B that affects the entire server.  I dunno,
it's a thought.  Right now, everybody just uses ab and points at /
or some small static file.  I think it'd be nice to standardize this
somewhat.

FWIW, the default httpd.conf is awful.  mod_include isn't allowed by
default anywhere (even in the manual).  That needs to be fixed.  It
took me 30 minutes to get mod_include to serve a shtml file.  Drats.
-- justin