(Another) simple benchmark

Ivan Voras ivoras at fer.hr
Fri May 19 15:50:37 UTC 2006

Michael Vince wrote:

> What I am trying to say here is you are expecting good performance out 
> of things like CGI/PHP and prefork,

Ok, did anybody read my initial post?

I'm NOT setting up a production machine. I'm NOT using PHP - it was 
mentioned as a reason threaded apache is not widely used. I've run "ab 
-n 100000 -c 100 http://localhost/" where "http://localhost/" references 
a small static HTML file, served by apache 2.0.x. PHP was not even 
included in both apache setups. I've run this on a 8-cpu Xeon beast (ok, 
not really - 4 cpus, tried with hyperthreading on and off) and got 
terrible performance. This performance is objectively low even by 
itself, without any comparison with other operating systems (such as linux).

What I *am* doing now is looking for someone who has a 4 CPU or bigger 
machine idle on which he/she can replicate this simple benchmark (it 
really IS simple - you need apache20 port in default configuration - 
everything's included) and confirm or contradict my results. I won't 
tell exactly what my results are because: a) to encourage fairness and 
b) because they are so ridiculously low that if I'm wrong I don't want 
it to end up in mailing list archives for posterity :)

 > Configuring a Apache server that has 'ready' 5 http daemons when
 > its really expecting to do 100,000 requests and handle huge amounts
 > of simultaneous connections just doesn't seem the right way to
 > approach such setups and benchmark methods.

This has nothing to do with my original intent but I must reply. Under 
the context of my "benchmark", you're practically saying that doing this 
on Linux (and no, +/- 10 servers ready doesn't make a difference when 
there are 100 simultaneous connections involved) is ok, but on FreeBSD 
it isn't because of...what? Lack of objectivity?

More information about the freebsd-performance mailing list