Re: Preparations for ZD's upcoming Apache/Linux benchmark

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <[e-mail]>
By author:    Steve Bergman <[e-mail]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > Of course nobody has addressed the problem that Apache is optimised for
> > the real world not benchmarks and that its not the right server to use
> > for a benching exercise with the rather poor benchmark tools used today.
> 
> There was an earlier thread that touched on Apache optimizations but was
> inconclusive on one point.  Is it or is it not possible to get around
> the thundering herd problem with multiple NIC's and Apache?  Isn't that
> Apache's main problem in this benchmark?
> 
> Apache is as much of an OSS poster child as Linux is.  Using something
> else like Zeus might win the battle but would lose the war.  What is
> really frustrating here is that while the netbench results have some
> reasonable real world interpretation, the webbench results are truly
> meaningless in today's world.  It almost seems like a diversionary
> tactic to take people's time away from making apache better, by forcing
> them to work on getting better numbers in a meaningless test.  Does
> anyone know of a Quad Xeon server anywhere with 4 100mb/s NIC's being
> pounded by 250+ clients throwing everything they've got at it?
> 

This is why a hybrid approach using two web servers binding to
different ports or IP addresses can be a very good idea.  Remember the
Unix philosophy: it's better to have two tools, each good at one
thing, than one tool that is mediocre at two things...

	-hpa
-- 
"The user's computer downloads the ActiveX code and simulates a 'Blue
Screen' crash, a generally benign event most users are familiar with
and that would not necessarily arouse suspicions."
-- Security exploit description on http://www.zks.net/p3/how.asp