|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Thanks for the reply! Chris Davies wrote:
Yeah, I know. Lies, damn lies, and statistics (benchmarks). I like using them to find tendencies rather than absolutes.I'm not a fan of benchmarks
Just after I emailed, I found this: http://www.litespeedtech.com/benchmark.html
I took it with a great big grain of salt considering it's a company trying to sell a competing product, but I couldn't see an immediate reason why their relative numbers between TUX and Apache would be conspicuously off. Unfortunately, it's also with the 2.4 kernel, not 2.6. I certainly wish they had specified which MPM they were using for Apache2 though.
For 2.6 tux, there are some improvements, apache seems to pick up some speed, probably through some of the 2.6 improvements. I've not served enough data with 2.6 to have any real impressions.
I would imagine TUX isn't hurt by the transition either. Oh well.
Why is this? TUX streams the output doesn't it? So why would file size make a difference? I guess I could see for PHP perhaps, but why for static files?I don't have enough large files (and I have tux set not to touch anything >10mb anyhow) to really see what would happen over a long download.
I am no big fan of PHP to be honest. I've just used the worker MPM with php_cgi. To be frank, if dynamic content performance were a premium for a project, I wouldn't use PHP. Not saying it's for everyone, but for me the advantages to using Apache2 outweigh the drawbacks of using PHP in CGI mode. Basically I just use it for the admin utilities so load hasn't been an issue. If php_cgi gets more than 2 requests a second, I would consider it heavy usage.Since you're using mpm-worker, I guess you don't need php since php4 requires apache2-prefork. Even so, we haven't found apache2-prefork/php4 to be a stable combination anyhow.
For the most part, my dynamic servers are set up behind Apache in a multiple reverse proxy setup for better performance. But reduced load for static is still reduced load; Hence the questions about relative TUX performance.
Yup. This makes relative comparisons few and far between. (eg. With 4GB of RAM, FooMHz CPU, and a 8GB dataset, web server A gets X% less performance than server B.)Almost noone runs the same test on the same hardware with different web servers.
I have another machine that we are experimenting with that has much larger images and less html. Even with that one, there is quite an improvement over apache.
Good to hear about.
Yup. I also like the fact that with TUX, I can toggle individual static file service by switching the "everyone" read rights. In addition, there's something to be said for having TUX serve pre-compressed static files with gzip -9.For a true test, run mpm-worker, get it set up and running. Then, change the Port to 81 (or 8080 or whatever), stop apache, turn tux on, restart apache and see. It is very easy to turn tux on and off without much interruption.
Thank you very much for the reply. I really appreciate it. - Miles Elam
[Older Fedora Users Mail] [Home] [Fedora Legacy] [Fedora Desktop] [iPod Nano] [ATA RAID] [Fedora Bible] [Fedora Marketing] [Fedora Mentors] [Fedora Packaging] [Fedora SELinux] [Big List of Linux Books] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [KDE Users] [Fedora Tools] [Fedora Docs]