You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Austin Gonyou <au...@coremetrics.com> on 2002/04/29 18:56:55 UTC
Re: updated worker, threadpool, and leader/follower performance c
omparisons
Damn...this is getting close. It's getting there it looks like. I can't
help but think the final outcome might be a choice of worker OR
leader/follower. I'll take a hit in the CPU to have closer avg load
between worker and leader/follower as well as the requests/sec being
what they are.
Ohh..if only.. :)
On Sun, 2002-04-28 at 23:02, Brian Pane wrote:
> > With a single listener port (I'll run multi-listener tests later
> today),
> >
> > MPM Requests Mean resp. CPU CPU
> > type per second time (ms) load utilization
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > worker 1250 37.4 6.1 65%
> > leader 1175 40.0 5.6 61%
> > threadpool 1012 47.1 4.2 47%
>
> with two listeners,
>
> MPM Requests Mean resp. CPU CPU
> type per second time (ms) load utilization
> ------------------------------------------------------
> worker 1071 44.3 4.1 51%
> leader 964 49.4 3.9 46%
> threadpool 997 47.8 3.9 46%
>
>
>
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-698-7250
email: austin@coremetrics.com
"It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it."
Latin Proverb