> 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 04:11:58 EST