[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More benchmarks
AJ>> Linux comes out pretty bad, Solaris and NT come out best.
Am I sick of test messing Linux performance with Apache performance with
Samba performece. Will those "testers" get a clue?
Apache *is not* (I repeat: IS NOT) the fastest Web server for Linux, nor
it's meant to be. Read Dean's comments on that, if you don't believe
me. It's not written for benchmarking, it's written for real
use. There are faster web servers that can show off on benchmarks. Apache
shows itself pretty well in real life. And no, I don't believe Linux is
*four* times slower than NT on file reads. 10% I'd agree, even 50%
maybe... But not _four times_ - I'd notice that without any benchmarks,
and I didn't. Well, I think it's time to me to stop caring for those
"benchmarkers" and seek a reliable source of information (like personal
and my friends' experience).
Yes, and now I see why those testers got bad of Apache:
<<
For example, when testing the performance of the
Apache Web server, which comes bundled with most
Linux distributions, we noticed a speed degradation
while ramping up clients. After careful examination
of the code, we found that the problem related to the
number of processes that were immediately spawned
by Apache
>>
Carefully examine my back! (pardon my french) It's in the docs,
dorks! In the first 10 lines, I think. Tell me they've read the code...
Tell me they understood from the code what is the problem.
They can't even read the docs bundled with the application. I hate those
idiots.
<<
Apache became CPU-bound at about 24 clients. This
is probably because of the Web server's need to spawn
a new process to handle every concurrent client
request.
>>
They forgot to tune it for more pre-forked subprocesses and more
requests-per-client... Yes, as it was said before. Experts, my God.
Still it got 2,200 requests a second - show me five web-servers that need
that.
And you won't believe amount of FUD in that article... They take some
particular application, say that it isn't ported on Linux, blame Linux on
that (yes! not those who do disservice for their clients by not porting
application to a needed palrofm - it's the platform who is to blame!) and
say that Linux has no capabilities provided by that application at all.
Like "there's no Microsoft Word (TM) on Linux, so you can't edit texts in
Linux". This level exactly.
--
frodo@sharat.co.il \/ There shall be counsels taken
Stanislav Malyshev /\ Stronger than Morgul-spells
phone +972-3-9316425 /\ JRRT LotR.
http://sharat.co.il/frodo/ whois:!SM8333