![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> Stupid question, but it's Saturday and I'm on a Windows system (don't ask...). > What do people think about something like SPECWeb99 - dynamic content, CGIs, > etc? I know the biggest complaint about 96 is that it's completely static > content which a completely tweaked setup will keep completely in memory, among > other "optimisations" I've heard of. 99 is a lot better. Its worthless for real traffic studies because real traffic its lots of slow connections (which bizarrely enough tends to be harder than a small number of fast ones). specweb96 is a bit comical, its the bogomips of web benches, 99 tells you some truths about your cgi performance at least > something like the House web server when the Lewinsky paper was released. It's > important for people to know that their system will continue to run and hopefully > well even when it's completely overrun. Ideas? It depends on your server. Apache is really easy to degrade badly, thttpd performs materially better under extreme load. Do your tests with both apache and thttpd (www.acme.com) I think the comparison is probably the interesting part for showing how degradation is app dependant Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:56 [W:0.543 / U:0.250 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||