Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:43:08 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: linux 2.2.19pre and thttpd (VM-global problem?) |
| |
On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 08:21:12PM -0800, dean gaudet wrote: > On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 06:50:18PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Your cgi will keep the other CPU occupied, or run two of them. thttpd has > > > superb scaling properties compared to say apache. > > > > I think with 8 CPUs and 8 NICs (usual benchmark setup) you want more than 1 cpu ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > serving static data and it should be more efficient if it's threaded and > > sleeping in accept() instead of running eight of them (starting from sharing > > tlb entries and avoiding flushes probably without the need of CPU binding). > > hey, nobody sane runs an 8 CPU box with 8 NICs for a production webserver. > 8 single CPU boxes, or 4 dual boxes behind a load balancer. now that's > more common, more scalable, more robust. :)
and it also provides high avaibility that is mandatory in a setup that needs high performance anyways.
> oh yeah they all run perl, java, or php too :) i've seen sites with more
and zope+python as well indeed.
> than 100 dynamic front-ends and a pair of 350Mhz x86 boxes in the corner > handling all the static needs (running apache even!). a pair only 'cause > of redundancy reasons, not because of load reasons.
Exactly. I totally agree with you (everybody who talked with me about those issues or attended my last two talks can confirm I agree ;).
But you're talking about real world. I was only talking about benchmarks. Don't complain me if usual benchmark setup is done with one server N-way SMP + N-Gbit-NICs (infact I can't run any usual webserving benchmark at home).
Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |