httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Evans <>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] Apache vs LiteSpeed
Date Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:45:29 GMT
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Jarrod Slick <> wrote:
> I'm curious -- why do you think that the results will be inconsistent?  If
> anything I would be inclined to think that using localhost would improve
> consistency as extraneous variables like network congestion at the time of
> testing would not be present.

There is no way you can fully load a webserver using a single instance
of a testing tool running on the same box. For starters, the testing
tool will end up consuming more CPU than the webserver, invalidating
your test results.

For a followup point, I would think that you would need multiple
instances of the testing tool, running on multiple boxes, to fully
load a server.

Certainly, you would need multiple instances of ab (which is what
LiteSpeed used to do their tests), as ab is not particularly good. A
better tool is Apache flood, or siege, either of which will stress the
server much harder than ab.

Network congestion/latencies could also affect the test result, which
is why you would run these tests multiple times, using a dedicated
switch (ie not connected to anything else).



The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
   "   from the digest:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message