Support

cyberzen · #1 10-23-2004, 11:29 AM

Could you include more web servers in your benchmark, like thttpd and boa?

mistwang · #2 10-23-2004, 07:17 PM

Sure!
A most complete benchmark result will be available soon. :-)

cyberzen · #3 10-24-2004, 11:21 AM

I suggest other people who want other webservers to be included in the benchmark to please post in this thread.

zellster · #4 10-25-2004, 12:50 PM

Another web server to benchmark: lighttpd

http://jan.kneschke.de/projects/lighttpd/

mistwang · #5 10-26-2004, 11:02 AM

Sure, if we have additional time to play with it. Our focus is on Apache though. :-)
We tried it before, and the result shows that its keep-alive performance is not as good as boa.

ts77 · #6 02-22-2005, 03:31 PM

any news about more benchmarks?

mistwang · #7 02-23-2005, 08:19 AM

New benchmarks will be released with 2.0 release.

andy · #8 03-11-2005, 01:33 PM

Something's not right in the new benchmark.

According to the product page litespeed standard cannot handle more than 300 concurrent connections, yet all the benchmarks show it handling up to 1000 concurrency. What gives?

mistwang · #9 03-11-2005, 02:32 PM

Not only LSWS, by default, Apache can only have 255 concurrent connections, but they still be able to survive on the 1000 concurrent level test.

That is true that at give time, Standand Edition can have 300 concurrent connections at most. However, it can more clients when it does not keep connections alive. LSWS will changes to non-keepalive mode when total concurrent connections reach certain level. That's why it can successfully pass the test like "ab -n xxxxx -c 1000 -k ..." with most requests non-keepalive.

ApacheBench does think the concurrent level is at 1000. :-)

hdghdfh · #10 03-11-2005, 03:33 PM

Regarding the lighttpd benchmark results: the performance would have been drastically better if the event handler would have been set up correctly (linux-sysepoll). But you probably know that already, and that's why it is commented out in the config...?