View Single Post
  #2  
Old 09-28-2005, 07:16 PM
mistwang mistwang is offline
LiteSpeed Staff
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,603
Hi Jefferson,

We did some performance test today.

Our test result shows that the scalability of poll is very bad when concurrent level is high, and LiteSpeed PHP has worse performance than FCGI PHP, when epoll is used, LiteSpeed PHP always win.
The poll() implementation in 2.6 Kernel is worse than that in 2.4, we think.

Our result:
FCGI PHP
Code:
ab -n 10000 -c 298 http://192.168.10.45:8088/phpinfo.php

Concurrency Level:      298
Time taken for tests:   21.250 seconds
Complete requests:      10000
Failed requests:        0
Broken pipe errors:     0
Total transferred:      255775919 bytes
HTML transferred:       254333788 bytes
Requests per second:    470.59 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request:       633.25 [ms] (mean)
Time per request:       2.12 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate:          12036.51 [Kbytes/sec] received
LiteSpeed PHP
Code:
ab -n 10000 -c 298 http://192.168.10.45:8088/phpinfo.phtml

Concurrency Level:      298
Time taken for tests:   19.020 seconds
Complete requests:      10000
Failed requests:        0
Broken pipe errors:     0
Total transferred:      240157735 bytes
HTML transferred:       238716105 bytes
Requests per second:    525.76 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request:       566.80 [ms] (mean)
Time per request:       1.90 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate:          12626.59 [Kbytes/sec] received
Our LiteSpeed PHP configuration:
Code:
Name	   lsphp
Address	uds://tmp/lshttpd/lsphp.sock
Max Connections	20
Environment	PHP_LSAPI_CHILDREN=20
PHP_LSAPI_MAX_REQUESTS=500

Initial Request Timeout (secs)	60
Retry Timeout (secs)	0
Response Bufferring	No
Auto Start	Yes
Command	$VH_ROOT/fcgi-bin/lsphp
Back Log	100
Instances	1
And we found that PHP 4.4.0 is about 50% faster than PHP 5.0.4 for both FCGI PHP and LiteSpeed PHP.

Best Regards,
George Wang
Reply With Quote