Benchmark

[xing]

BuhBomps,

What is hssTVS? Do you have a link to it?

[ts77]

Originally Posted by xing

BuhBomps,

What is hssTVS? Do you have a link to it?

thats a simple one
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=...le-Suche&meta=



thomas

[xing]

Ah. Thanks. For some reason, my previous googling skill did not result in anything. My ability to mistype must be too good. =)

I see that hssTVS is:

1) Static content only
2) Fast (based on their benchmarks)
3) Uses epoll

We will definitely use them in our next round of benchmarks.

They did include LiteSpeed 2.0 Standard Edition in their benchmark which did very well, better than comparable (apples to apples) product such as Lighttpd despite the fact they had only "poll" enabled for LiteSpeed and epoll enabled for their own product and Lighttpd. LiteSpeed has supported epoll for ages. Strange they didn't turn it on. No conspiracy theory but it must've been a honest mistake at LiteSpeed's expense nonetheless.

[Nope]

Being the programmer of hssTVS ....

Well, I didn't enable epoll for Litespeed because you definitely state in your benchmarks that poll would give better results ... At least I did disable anything else that could degrade performance, like logfiles or htaccess.

I'd be happy to change any config you desire for the next round of benchmarks I do. I'll be also very happy to assist in configuring my hssTVS for your next benchmarks.

What I really missed in your benchmarks was testing the conditional get and HEAD request speed as those methods are usually heavily used too in real life.

That being said, the TVS server supporting dynamic content will be started after hssTVS reaches beta (with my definition of beta being finished and waiting for any bugs to show up before declaring it final).

[xing]

On second thought. Having epoll enabled for LSWS Std on their benchmark probably would not have made much difference in the scalability tests as the LiteSpeed Standard Edition has a 300 concurrent connections cap. epoll only shows it's true use in very high concurrent rates.

[xing]

Nope, for the record, the the post above was posted before I saw your reply. =)

I do have to say I should've read the complete thread more fully as mistwang did have mention about the pros and cons of poll vs epoll and how it applied in concurrency rates. So you are right in that he was hinting that poll could be faster than epoll depending on concurrency rate.

Though I would still liked it having epoll enabled simply because it would put everyone on the same event dispatcher, even if it's at LiteSpeed's disadvantage, as it would be to no-one's advantage at using the same event api, when the product supports it.

Now I know who to contact for hssTVS setup, you will definitely hear from us when it comes to the next round of benchmarking.

As for conditional GETs and HEAD, I would say conditional GETs are much more important than HEAD and it would be a good benchmark metric.

[Nope]

Originally Posted by xing

Nope, for the record, the the post above was posted before I saw your reply. =)

I do have to say I should've read the complete thread more fully as mistwang did have mention about the pros and cons of poll vs epoll and how it applied in concurrency rates. So you are right in that he was hinting that poll could be faster than epoll depending on concurrency rate.

Though I would still liked it having epoll enabled simply because it would put everyone on the same event dispatcher, even if it's at LiteSpeed's disadvantage, as it would be to no-one's advantage at using the same event api, when the product supports it.

Well, I admit not reading the complete manuals/guides for all the servers I tested. I did usually look into comments on the pages/forums though. I did also disable all that came to mind which could hinder performance as especially hssTVS didn't support them and I wouldn't give it an unfair advantage. Honestely, I did the benchmarks mostly for my own benefit, wanting to know where my code was compared to others.

Originally Posted by xing

Now I know who to contact for hssTVS setup, you will definitely hear from us when it comes to the next round of benchmarking.

Next time I'll ask you too.

Originally Posted by xing

As for conditional GETs and HEAD, I would say conditional GETs are much more important than HEAD and it would be a good benchmark metric.

Well, a lot search engine crawlers still use HEAD as do a couple of http/1.0 Proxies out there. But you are right, use of HEAD is definetely decreasing. What I like about HEAD additionally is the fact that it shows the raw speed of the internal parsing without the network/disk/ram speed being much of an issue. Of course a 304 is almost as lean, just adding the date parser to the results.

[xing]

Nope, you should add your webserver to the following wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_servers

[Nope]

I thought about that a while ago, but opted to wait until I get the features finished and at least into the final beta stage. As it's now I would have problems to provide a support to speak of to more than a handfull users and hunting for bugs.
My work as proxy admin/operator/developer is currently stressfull as we are currently in a state of transition between systems. That's on a bigger farm collection providing access to over 50000 users. So, such an exposure has to wait.

Are you sure YOUR forum is the right place to speak about MY server? -lol-
Besides it's getting way off topic now.

[xing]

Competition makes everyone better and I also don't mind mentioning Lighttpd, Zeus, Apache, BillGates 6.0, kryptonite 8.5, or any other server in the LiteSpeed Benchmark thread. =)

We stand by our product and will take on all challengers.