On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Yusuf Goolamabbas wrote:
Instead of ApacheBench (ab). May I recommend Flood
http://httpd.apache.org/test/flood/
Why Flood, according to Paul Querna (Apache committer) in this blog post
http://paul.querna.org/journal/articles/2005/07/05/response-to-debunking-lighttpd?postid=85
--
ApacheBench Sucks. Why? It can't scale. It uses some blocking IO, but tries to
use a single/threaded event paradigm. It has no concept of timing. Its
understanding of HTTP/1.1 is limited to KeepAlives
--
Now Flood also supports SSL though does not have engine(3) support. Now, think
about Flood with engine(3) support taking advantage of the MAU on the
T1000/T2000. It' becomes a screaming fast http client with a workload that the
T1000/T2000 excels on. Then with Flood on Niagara, compare Apache/SSL on
Niagara/Opteron/Dell boxen.
IMHO, Flood will make the Niagara box look very nice and since the benchmark is
open source compared to SPEC it means a lot more to ISP's/hosters looking for
SSL offload box.
So a shout-out to any Sun engineers who have the SSL mojo to add engine(3)
support to Flood and pass the patches to ASF for committing them to the Flood
tree. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain
I concur that ab has issues, and actually prefer siege to benchmark HTTP
workloads:
http://www.joedog.org/siege/
Siege is fully threaded, extremely light weight, and has some SUPER
useful benchmarking options.
Thanks,
- Ryan
--
UNIX Administrator
http://daemons.net/~matty
_______________________________________________
perf-discuss mailing list
perf-discuss@opensolaris.org
