You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Brian Pane <br...@cnet.com> on 2001/12/05 01:35:01 UTC
Good performance results from Sander's pool patch
Some test results, thanks to Ian H.:
http://webperf.org/a2/v30/
This compares today's httpd-2.0 CVS head with
my "recycle pools" patch for the worker MPM and
Sander's new implementation of pools.
Sander's pool code yielded a substantial drop
in usr CPU consumption (see the "cpuu" links on
the test result pages) and a corresponding increase
in throughput. My worker MPM patch was faster than
the current CVS head, but not as fast as Sander's
pool code. (I'd expected the two changes to be
complementary, but the combination of my worker
patch with Sander's pool changes wasn't as fast
as the pool changes alone. Maybe because recycling
the pools, rather than destroying them, reduced the
cache locality on the multiprocessor test server?)
--Brian
Re: Good performance results from Sander's pool patch
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@ebuilt.com>.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 04:11:21PM -0800, Ian Holsman wrote:
> would anyone mind too much if I add some purify hooks into
> the pool code? (sanders & current) They will be #ifdef'd
> this will help in our internal debugging efforts, and anyone
> else who uses purify.
How about we get the new code in first? =) -- justin
Re: Good performance results from Sander's pool patch
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@apache.org>.
Brian Pane wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:35:01PM -0800, Brian Pane wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Some test results, thanks to Ian H.:
>>> http://webperf.org/a2/v30/
>>>This compares today's httpd-2.0 CVS head with
>>>my "recycle pools" patch for the worker MPM and
>>>Sander's new implementation of pools.
>>>
>>>Sander's pool code yielded a substantial drop
>>>in usr CPU consumption (see the "cpuu" links on
>>>the test result pages) and a corresponding increase
>>>in throughput. My worker MPM patch was faster than
>>>
>>>
>>So, is this a +1 from you? =) -- justin
>>
>>
>
> My +1 is nonbinding in APR, but I'm in favor of replacing
> the current pool code with Sander's faster version, once
> some more people have had a chance to read and critique the
> code.
>
> --Brian
>
>
>
>
would anyone mind too much if I add some purify hooks into
the pool code? (sanders & current) They will be #ifdef'd
this will help in our internal debugging efforts, and anyone
else who uses purify.
Re: Good performance results from Sander's pool patch
Posted by Brian Pane <br...@cnet.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:35:01PM -0800, Brian Pane wrote:
>
>>Some test results, thanks to Ian H.:
>> http://webperf.org/a2/v30/
>>This compares today's httpd-2.0 CVS head with
>>my "recycle pools" patch for the worker MPM and
>>Sander's new implementation of pools.
>>
>>Sander's pool code yielded a substantial drop
>>in usr CPU consumption (see the "cpuu" links on
>>the test result pages) and a corresponding increase
>>in throughput. My worker MPM patch was faster than
>>
>
>So, is this a +1 from you? =) -- justin
>
My +1 is nonbinding in APR, but I'm in favor of replacing
the current pool code with Sander's faster version, once
some more people have had a chance to read and critique the
code.
--Brian
Re: Good performance results from Sander's pool patch
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@ebuilt.com>.
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:35:01PM -0800, Brian Pane wrote:
> Some test results, thanks to Ian H.:
> http://webperf.org/a2/v30/
> This compares today's httpd-2.0 CVS head with
> my "recycle pools" patch for the worker MPM and
> Sander's new implementation of pools.
>
> Sander's pool code yielded a substantial drop
> in usr CPU consumption (see the "cpuu" links on
> the test result pages) and a corresponding increase
> in throughput. My worker MPM patch was faster than
So, is this a +1 from you? =) -- justin