Apache's main problem is more likely to just be the fact that it isn't
meant to be a speed deamon. The design was for other goals. The apache
team seems to be working on performance, but the _big_ advantage in
using Apache tends to be flexibility rather than raw performance on some
not-very-real-world benchmarks.
The thundering herd thing shoul dbe fixed by just having the listen
socket listen to SOCKADDR_ANY - which I _think_ is what apache does by
default, but I have to admit to not having looked at the code in
basically forever.
The other option, of course, is to run two copies of apache with
different listening socket addresses.
>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.
Besides, it's not really what MS was interested in showcasing, and is
not really what most peoples choice would be about anyway. So I think
we may want to make sure Zeus or similar numbers are available to
people, but also to some degree educate them on what the strengths of
Apache are.
And I'm very interested in people doing kernel modules for static
content serving with fall-backs to Apache etc. That is, to a large
degree, what NT seems to be doing, with IIS-only magic system calls etc.
And we can do it so much more cleanly.
> What is
>really frustrating here is that while the netbench results have some
>reasonable real world interpretation
Not really. I agree that the _hardware_ setup in netbench is more
realistic (ie the network setup is at least something that in theory
could be used at a real site), the actual netbench benchmark seems to be
very unrealistic indeed. It's just creating lots of large temporary
files without doing much else, which at least to me sounds very
contrieved.
> , 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.
Agreed.
However, the things is that web performance obviously _is_ important to
a lot of people, and it's really hard to benchmark slow connections and
lossy networks etc which is what most real-life uses are. So webbench
is kind of a "default choice" - it's a bad benchmark of real-life
behaviour, but there isn't anything else out there.
So it's understandable.
Linus
-
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/