Re: Apache vs LiteSpeed

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Jarrod Slick <jarrod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm curious -- why do you think that the results will be inconsistent?  If
> anything I would be inclined to think that using localhost would improve
> consistency as extraneous variables like network congestion at the time of
> testing would not be present.
>

There is no way you can fully load a webserver using a single instance
of a testing tool running on the same box. For starters, the testing
tool will end up consuming more CPU than the webserver, invalidating
your test results.

For a followup point, I would think that you would need multiple
instances of the testing tool, running on multiple boxes, to fully
load a server.

Certainly, you would need multiple instances of ab (which is what
LiteSpeed used to do their tests), as ab is not particularly good. A
better tool is Apache flood, or siege, either of which will stress the
server much harder than ab.

Network congestion/latencies could also affect the test result, which
is why you would run these tests multiple times, using a dedicated
switch (ie not connected to anything else).

Cheers

Tom

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   "   from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



[Index of Archives]     [Open SSH Users]     [Linux ACPI]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Squid]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux