Alan Cox wrote:
> > 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
>
I knew that I wanted to say something else about this...You are assuming that the only
important web server is one that is accessed over the Internet via a slow dialup
connection. While that may be so now, and certainly was moreso earlier, it is only
becoming less true.
With things such as cable modem, DSL and high-speed wireless connections, as well as
the growing importance of intranet servers, the common case in the near future will be
lots of fast connections, not slow ones. Now all we need to do is be able to measure
performance on both scenarios and I think we'll be doing much better.
- Pete
-
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 - 21:00:28 EST