You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by TO...@aol.com on 2001/09/06 01:52:54 UTC
Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 ( Thread restart )
This is a complete 'rewind' and 'restart' of Justin's
original message (below) which kicked off the
recent discussion.
Since the options have narrowed to just 1... it's all
simpler now.
FWIW: +1 from me.
Yours...
Kevin Kiley
In a message dated 01-09-01 17:57:32 EDT, you write:
> Ian has posted his mod_gz filter before, now I'd like to give it a +1.
>
> I told him I'd look at it a while ago, but never got a chance to do
> so. So, I spent this morning cleaning up the configuration and a bit
> of the code to fit our style (nothing major).
>
> I'd like to add this to the modules/filters directory (which seems
> like the most appropriate place).
>
> Can I get two other +1s? I've reviewed the code and can get it
> confirmed working with Netscape 4.77 and Mozilla 0.9.3 by adding the
> following to httpd.conf:
>
> <IfModule mod_gz.c>
> GZFilter On
> AddOutputFilter GZ html
> </IfModule>
>
> We could remove GZFilter as it really serves no purpose as well as the
> text/html check in mod_gz. I'd like to commit something that is close
> to what Ian originally submitted and then tweak it slightly.
>
> (Interesting to note that Netscape 4.77 does not allow you to view
> the source of a gzipped'd entity while Mozilla shows you the
> decompressed entity. Mozilla is getting cool...)
>
> I'm sure we can do more analysis of its performance (what the
> appropriate deflation settings should be), but I'd really to get
> this in first. =-) Justin.
Re: Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 ( Thread restart )
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 09:15:56PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
> >>On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:05:27PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> >>>Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
> >>>http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
> >>>(no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser while running test)
> >>>I'm going to be re-running the tests for a longer period to see if
> >>>there are memory leaks (as well as quantify/purify on it next week)
> >>>
> >>>brief summary:
> >>> * numbers are based on pages going through mod-include
> >>> * once of the runs looks a bit flaky.. and I'm re-running it
> >>> * cpu usage (USR) is VERY high (from 100 without gz to 500)
> >>> * page requests down 16% when using GZ
> >
> > What does this mean? Total bytes transferred? If so, then why only 16%
> >
> > The number of page requests should be constant, unless mod_gz introduces
> > some kind of caching.
>
> the number of concurrent requests are constant in all of these tests.
> we have 50 processes (spread across 10 machines) doing GET's of a page.
> when a page is retrived is GET's it again (and again..)
> so if the page response is slower, then the pages/second will also be.
>
> we have a more sophisticated comercial machine which can generate better
> traffic, but it is core dumping at the moment so I can run't the tests through it.
Ah! By "page requests down..." you mean page requests *per second* ??
You omitted that "per second", so the statistic made no sense...
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 ( Thread restart )
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@cnet.com>.
Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:07:26PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:05:27PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
>>
>>>Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
>>>http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
>>>(no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser while running test)
>>>I'm going to be re-running the tests for a longer period to see if
>>>there are memory leaks (as well as quantify/purify on it next week)
>>>
>>>brief summary:
>>> * numbers are based on pages going through mod-include
>>> * once of the runs looks a bit flaky.. and I'm re-running it
>>> * cpu usage (USR) is VERY high (from 100 without gz to 500)
>>> * page requests down 16% when using GZ
>>>
>
> What does this mean? Total bytes transferred? If so, then why only 16%
>
> The number of page requests should be constant, unless mod_gz introduces
> some kind of caching.
the number of concurrent requests are constant in all of these tests.
we have 50 processes (spread across 10 machines) doing GET's of a page.
when a page is retrived is GET's it again (and again..)
so if the page response is slower, then the pages/second will also be.
we have a more sophisticated comercial machine which can generate better
traffic, but it is core dumping at the moment so I can run't the tests through it.
>
>
>>> * page resposne times are slower with GZ, but have a lower deviation
>>>
>>The expectation is that the network bandwidth used should be much
>>lower. The tradeoff is that the CPU should get nailed. -- justin
>>
>
> Also: latency should increase and delivery time should decrease.
>
> cheers,
> -g
>
>
Re: Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 ( Thread restart )
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:07:26PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:05:27PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> > Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
> > http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
> > (no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser while running test)
> > I'm going to be re-running the tests for a longer period to see if
> > there are memory leaks (as well as quantify/purify on it next week)
> >
> > brief summary:
> > * numbers are based on pages going through mod-include
> > * once of the runs looks a bit flaky.. and I'm re-running it
> > * cpu usage (USR) is VERY high (from 100 without gz to 500)
> > * page requests down 16% when using GZ
What does this mean? Total bytes transferred? If so, then why only 16%
The number of page requests should be constant, unless mod_gz introduces
some kind of caching.
> > * page resposne times are slower with GZ, but have a lower deviation
>
> The expectation is that the network bandwidth used should be much
> lower. The tradeoff is that the CPU should get nailed. -- justin
Also: latency should increase and delivery time should decrease.
cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 ( Thread restart )
Posted by Brian Pane <bp...@pacbell.net>.
Ian Holsman wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:05:27PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
>>
>>> Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
>>> http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
>>> (no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser while running test)
>>> I'm going to be re-running the tests for a longer period to see if
>>> there are memory leaks (as well as quantify/purify on it next week)
>>>
>>> brief summary:
>>> * numbers are based on pages going through mod-include
>>> * once of the runs looks a bit flaky.. and I'm re-running it
>>> * cpu usage (USR) is VERY high (from 100 without gz to 500)
>>> * page requests down 16% when using GZ
>>> * page resposne times are slower with GZ, but have a lower
>>> deviation
>>>
>>
>> The expectation is that the network bandwidth used should be much
>> lower. The tradeoff is that the CPU should get nailed. -- justin
>>
> (put another 10 minute gzip run on the site.. this doesn't have the
> spike in the middle)
Do you have mrtg stats on the bandwidth utilization for the two tests?
--Brian
Re: Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 ( Thread restart )
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@cnet.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:05:27PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>>Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
>>http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
>>(no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser while running test)
>>I'm going to be re-running the tests for a longer period to see if
>>there are memory leaks (as well as quantify/purify on it next week)
>>
>>brief summary:
>> * numbers are based on pages going through mod-include
>> * once of the runs looks a bit flaky.. and I'm re-running it
>> * cpu usage (USR) is VERY high (from 100 without gz to 500)
>> * page requests down 16% when using GZ
>> * page resposne times are slower with GZ, but have a lower deviation
>>
>
> The expectation is that the network bandwidth used should be much
> lower. The tradeoff is that the CPU should get nailed. -- justin
>
(put another 10 minute gzip run on the site.. this doesn't have the spike in the middle)
to put the CPU usage in perspective.
we were running hotter than this with mod-include ~1 week ago.
(before brian's & justin's patches)
..Ian
Re: Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 ( Thread restart )
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@ebuilt.com>.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:05:27PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
> http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
> (no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser while running test)
> I'm going to be re-running the tests for a longer period to see if
> there are memory leaks (as well as quantify/purify on it next week)
>
> brief summary:
> * numbers are based on pages going through mod-include
> * once of the runs looks a bit flaky.. and I'm re-running it
> * cpu usage (USR) is VERY high (from 100 without gz to 500)
> * page requests down 16% when using GZ
> * page resposne times are slower with GZ, but have a lower deviation
The expectation is that the network bandwidth used should be much
lower. The tradeoff is that the CPU should get nailed. -- justin
Re: Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0 ( Thread restart )
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@cnet.com>.
TOKILEY@aol.com wrote:
> This is a complete 'rewind' and 'restart' of Justin's
> original message (below) which kicked off the
> recent discussion.
>
> Since the options have narrowed to just 1... it's all
> simpler now.
>
> FWIW: +1 from me.
Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
(no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser while running test)
I'm going to be re-running the tests for a longer period to see if
there are memory leaks (as well as quantify/purify on it next week)
brief summary:
* numbers are based on pages going through mod-include
* once of the runs looks a bit flaky.. and I'm re-running it
* cpu usage (USR) is VERY high (from 100 without gz to 500)
* page requests down 16% when using GZ
* page resposne times are slower with GZ, but have a lower deviation
Kevin..
the offer still stands... If you mail me your module, I'll run it through the same test
..Ian
>
> Yours...
> Kevin Kiley
>
> In a message dated 01-09-01 17:57:32 EDT, you write:
>
>
>>Ian has posted his mod_gz filter before, now I'd like to give it a +1.
>>
>> I told him I'd look at it a while ago, but never got a chance to do
>> so. So, I spent this morning cleaning up the configuration and a bit
>> of the code to fit our style (nothing major).
>>
>> I'd like to add this to the modules/filters directory (which seems
>> like the most appropriate place).
>>
>> Can I get two other +1s? I've reviewed the code and can get it
>> confirmed working with Netscape 4.77 and Mozilla 0.9.3 by adding the
>> following to httpd.conf:
>>
>> <IfModule mod_gz.c>
>> GZFilter On
>> AddOutputFilter GZ html
>> </IfModule>
>>
>> We could remove GZFilter as it really serves no purpose as well as the
>> text/html check in mod_gz. I'd like to commit something that is close
>> to what Ian originally submitted and then tweak it slightly.
>>
>> (Interesting to note that Netscape 4.77 does not allow you to view
>> the source of a gzipped'd entity while Mozilla shows you the
>> decompressed entity. Mozilla is getting cool...)
>>
>> I'm sure we can do more analysis of its performance (what the
>> appropriate deflation settings should be), but I'd really to get
>> this in first. =-) Justin.
>>