|
List Info
Thread: Cherokee 0.5.4 and 0.6 tests, 0.6 has problems
|
|
| Cherokee 0.5.4 and 0.6 tests, 0.6 has
problems |
|
2006-09-22 21:09:33 |
I've done some server benchmarks - Pylons+server using
Cherokee and
Lighttpd with SCGI, nginx FastCGI and reverse proxy and
cherokee won.
The results aren't online yet as I wait for the domain to
redirect to
my new site 
I've also downloaded cherokee-0.6.0b396 from the list and
tested it
today. It compiled ok on adm64/gentoo system. But the
benchmark
(httperf) showed that there is a "bug" or
something.
I've used this config:
###################
server!port = 80
server!timeout = 20
server!keepalive = 1
server!keepalive_max_requests = 1000
server!pid_file = /var/run/cherokee.pid
server!server_tokens = full
server!panic_action = /usr/bin/cherokee-panic
# Default virtual server
#
vserver!default!document_root = /home/piotr/d/searchengine/
vserver!default!directory!/!handler = scgi
vserver!default!directory!/!priority = 1
vserver!default!directory!/!handler!balancer = round_robin
vserver!default!directory!/!handler!balancer!type =
interpreter
vserver!default!directory!/!handler!balancer!local_scgi2!hos
t = localhost:8080
vserver!default!directory!/!priority = 1
####################
And Pylons/SCGI works, httperf with 100con/sec works nice,
0,1 ms
faster response time than 0.5.4 (statistical error, but ;))
but when I
go to 300con/sec cherokee likes to hang - stops responding
(pylons
SCGI server doesn't show new requests comming in) this is
very odd
since I've pushed 0.5.4 to 1000/sec which return most
errors but the
server didn't breake.
When the server hangs I see some extra cherokee in "ps
aux":
#################
root 8113 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:00
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8114 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:00
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8115 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:00
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8116 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:00
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8117 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:00
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8118 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:00
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8119 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:00
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8120 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:00
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8121 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:00
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8122 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:00
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8123 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:00
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8124 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:01
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8125 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:01
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8126 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:01
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8127 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:01
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8128 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:01
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
root 8129 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? Z 23:01
0:00
[cherokee] <defunct>
#################
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee 0x50.org
http://www.0x50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
|
|
| Cherokee 0.5.4 and 0.6 tests, 0.6 has
problems |
|
2006-09-22 23:53:35 |
piotr mali´nski wrote:
> I've done some server benchmarks - Pylons+server using
Cherokee and
> Lighttpd with SCGI, nginx FastCGI and reverse proxy and
cherokee
> won.
I'm really glad to see that Cherokee won again !!!
> The results aren't online yet as I wait for the domain
to redirect
> to my new site
Please, let me know the URL as soon as you publish it,
I'd like to
write a little blog entry pointing to your benchmark
results.
> I've also downloaded cherokee-0.6.0b396 from the list
and tested it
> today. It compiled ok on adm64/gentoo system. But the
benchmark
> (httperf) showed that there is a "bug" or
something.
Ok, I'm gonna test it out, and I will let you know it I
see
something (in that case I'd release a new 0.6 snapshot).
Cheers!
--
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee0x50.org
http://www.0x50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
|
|
| Cherokee 0.5.4 and 0.6 tests, 0.6 has
problems |
|
2006-09-23 11:57:39 |
On Fre 22.09.2006 21:09, piotr mali?ski wrote:
>
>I've done some server benchmarks - Pylons+server using
Cherokee and
>Lighttpd with SCGI, nginx FastCGI and reverse proxy and
cherokee won.
>The results aren't online yet as I wait for the domain
to redirect to
>my new site
But isn't it a little bit unfair to rund FastCGI against
SCGI?!
How about to test the following scenario:
cherokee, nginx, lighty => fcgi
cherokee, nginx, lighty => reverse proxy
cherokee, lighty => scgi
What do you think?!
Regards
Alex
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee0x50.org
http://www.0x50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
|
|
| Cherokee 0.5.4 and 0.6 tests, 0.6 has
problems |
|
2006-09-23 14:06:43 |
Alexander Lazic wrote:
>> I've done some server benchmarks - Pylons+server
using Cherokee and
>> Lighttpd with SCGI, nginx FastCGI and reverse proxy
and cherokee
>> won. The results aren't online yet as I wait for
the domain to
>> redirect to my new site
>
>
>
> But isn't it a little bit unfair to rund FastCGI
against SCGI?!
I don't think so. Why?
In my opinion SCGI is just a good taste implementation of
FastCGI.
Obviously FastCGI includes some features that SCGI
doesn't, although
any of those are not needed by 99% of the people, so it's
not an
issue actually.
> How about to test the following scenario:
>
> cherokee, nginx, lighty => fcgi
> cherokee, nginx, lighty => reverse proxy
> cherokee, lighty => scgi
>
> What do you think?!
All kind of benchmarks are welcome.
The thing is that, right now, the 0.6 base code is not
optimized, so
any benchmark performed within the next few weeks (couple
of months)
would be outdated as soon as we start optimizing it (even
if it wins
like in this case).
--
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee0x50.org
http://www.0x50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
|
|
| Cherokee 0.5.4 and 0.6 tests, 0.6 has
problems |
|
2006-09-23 15:05:05 |
On Sam 23.09.2006 09:06, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
>Alexander Lazic wrote:
>
>> But isn't it a little bit unfair to rund FastCGI
against SCGI?!
>
> I don't think so. Why?
>
> In my opinion SCGI is just a good taste implementation
of FastCGI.
> Obviously FastCGI includes some features that SCGI
doesn't, although
> any of those are not needed by 99% of the people, so
it's not an
> issue actually.
Ok, I haven't know this.
>> How about to test the following scenario:
>>
>> cherokee, nginx, lighty => fcgi
>> cherokee, nginx, lighty => reverse proxy
>> cherokee, lighty => scgi
>>
>> What do you think?!
>
> All kind of benchmarks are welcome.
Regards
Alex
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee0x50.org
http://www.0x50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
|
|
| Cherokee 0.5.4 and 0.6 tests, 0.6 has
problems |
|
2006-09-23 22:09:37 |
I've tested also Django/SCGI and cherokee 0.6.* hangs also
with the same effect.
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee0x50.org
http://www.0x50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
|
|
| Cherokee 0.5.4 and 0.6 tests, 0.6 has
problems |
|
2006-09-22 23:53:35 |
piotr mali´nski wrote:
> I've done some server benchmarks - Pylons+server using
Cherokee and
> Lighttpd with SCGI, nginx FastCGI and reverse proxy and
cherokee
> won.
I'm really glad to see that Cherokee won again !!!
> The results aren't online yet as I wait for the domain
to redirect
> to my new site
Please, let me know the URL as soon as you publish it, I'd
like to
write a little blog entry pointing to your benchmark
results.
> I've also downloaded cherokee-0.6.0b396 from the list
and tested it
> today. It compiled ok on adm64/gentoo system. But the
benchmark
> (httperf) showed that there is a "bug" or
something.
Ok, I'm gonna test it out, and I will let you know it I
see
something (in that case I'd release a new 0.6 snapshot).
Cheers!
--
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee0x50.org
http://www.0x50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
|
|
| Cherokee 0.5.4 and 0.6 tests, 0.6 has
problems |
|
2006-09-23 11:57:39 |
On Fre 22.09.2006 21:09, piotr mali?ski wrote:
>
>I've done some server benchmarks - Pylons+server using
Cherokee and
>Lighttpd with SCGI, nginx FastCGI and reverse proxy and
cherokee won.
>The results aren't online yet as I wait for the domain
to redirect to
>my new site
But isn't it a little bit unfair to rund FastCGI against
SCGI?!
How about to test the following scenario:
cherokee, nginx, lighty => fcgi
cherokee, nginx, lighty => reverse proxy
cherokee, lighty => scgi
What do you think?!
Regards
Alex
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee0x50.org
http://www.0x50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
|
|
| Cherokee 0.5.4 and 0.6 tests, 0.6 has
problems |
|
2006-09-23 14:06:43 |
Alexander Lazic wrote:
>> I've done some server benchmarks - Pylons+server
using Cherokee and
>> Lighttpd with SCGI, nginx FastCGI and reverse proxy
and cherokee
>> won. The results aren't online yet as I wait for
the domain to
>> redirect to my new site
>
>
>
> But isn't it a little bit unfair to rund FastCGI
against SCGI?!
I don't think so. Why?
In my opinion SCGI is just a good taste implementation of
FastCGI.
Obviously FastCGI includes some features that SCGI
doesn't, although
any of those are not needed by 99% of the people, so it's
not an
issue actually.
> How about to test the following scenario:
>
> cherokee, nginx, lighty => fcgi
> cherokee, nginx, lighty => reverse proxy
> cherokee, lighty => scgi
>
> What do you think?!
All kind of benchmarks are welcome.
The thing is that, right now, the 0.6 base code is not
optimized, so
any benchmark performed within the next few weeks (couple
of months)
would be outdated as soon as we start optimizing it (even
if it wins
like in this case).
--
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee0x50.org
http://www.0x50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
|
|
| Cherokee 0.5.4 and 0.6 tests, 0.6 has
problems |
|
2006-09-23 15:05:05 |
On Sam 23.09.2006 09:06, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
>Alexander Lazic wrote:
>
>> But isn't it a little bit unfair to rund FastCGI
against SCGI?!
>
> I don't think so. Why?
>
> In my opinion SCGI is just a good taste implementation
of FastCGI.
> Obviously FastCGI includes some features that SCGI
doesn't, although
> any of those are not needed by 99% of the people, so
it's not an
> issue actually.
Ok, I haven't know this.
>> How about to test the following scenario:
>>
>> cherokee, nginx, lighty => fcgi
>> cherokee, nginx, lighty => reverse proxy
>> cherokee, lighty => scgi
>>
>> What do you think?!
>
> All kind of benchmarks are welcome.
Regards
Alex
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee0x50.org
http://www.0x50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
|
|
| Cherokee 0.5.4 and 0.6 tests, 0.6 has
problems |
|
2006-10-19 15:08:06 |
The site with the benchmarks is nearly on-line -
www.rkblog.rk.edu.pl
- there may be some problems as the second DNS isn't
redirected yet.
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee0x50.org
http://www.0x50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
|
|
| Cherokee 0.5.4 and 0.6 tests, 0.6 has
problems |
|
2006-10-19 15:08:06 |
The site with the benchmarks is nearly on-line -
www.rkblog.rk.edu.pl
- there may be some problems as the second DNS isn't
redirected yet.
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee0x50.org
http://www.0x50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
|
|
[1-12]
|
|