Benchmark

[Nope]

Well, ok then.

Have you had the chance to take a closer look at my baby then? A couple of features might be overkill for a mere static content server I guess, but it's to be the core of the "real" thing later on.

[BuhBompus]

OK.. Just for you stat freaks out there, I "tried" to run a benchmark on LiteSpeed/2.1.15 standard vs hssTVS for static content. My results are below..

Notice to LiteSpeed Tech: Your server would not let me run the benchmark as it would only get to "Completed 10000 requests" in ApacheBench and stop. From what I can tell, the log files didn't give me any info, but I think even though I had all the security/throttle/banning options turned off, it was still banning the IP address from any further connections and wouldn't allow anything else from the IP until I restarted the server. Accessing the page using an alternate IP was successful.

Here are the results:

----
ApacheBench 2.0.40-dev
ab -k -n 100000 -c 100 http://127.0.0.1:65000/<numbytes>.html
Notice: Due to the lack of a private network,
these results are LOW due to the fact AB was running on the same machine as the web servers, 127.0.0.1 <-> 127.0.0.1 , therefore CPU usage was VERY effected. These results should be higher if ran across a network using 2 seperate PC's.
----

^^^^^
LiteSpeed/2.1.15 Standard
- 127.0.0.1 - No Logging - Follow Symbolic - Disable Script - Not Restrained - epoll()
- Max KeepAlive: 500 - Smart KeepAlive - No Security - No .htaccess - No Expires

Results:
100 Concurrent: Decided to stop responding to requests even though security was disabled?
Unable to test...
^^^^^^

^^^^^^
hssTVS 0.218d
- 127.0.0.1 - No Logging - 100 concurrent keepalive

100 byte static file: Requests per second: 9889.81
1000 byte static file: Requests per second: 9834.88
4000 byte static file: Requests per second: 8854.65
- Transfer rate: 36434.78 [Kbytes/sec]
16000 byte static file: Requests per second: 5404.62
- Transfer rate: 85601.56 [Kbytes/sec]
^^^^^^

I would be more than happy to run more benchmarks once I get LiteSpeed to work without banning the IP from what it seems like a LOT of connections at a time (even thought it is set to off). I would also like to run the test between 2 seperate PC's on a LAN so I can get real results.

Aaron

[Nope]

Well, you should always include more information about the used system. So Processor/Ram (amount+speed)/hdd (type/size/speed) are the minimum. The OS including distro and exact kernel version, which runlevel and perhaps other demons/programs which may influence the results. If you use a real network it's often of interest which cards/chipsets/switches you've used.

Beside of that, ab in version 2.0.x is not very good. Better would be the older 1.3.x or, for some tests, httperf (also free and together with autobench really convenient). The local loopback is also not so good, but as long as all contestants run on the same machine it can give at least give a clue about the effectiveness. Sadly it ignores network specific things which can have a huge influence on the real world speed of a server program. In case you want to test huge files over a network you might have to start including the CPU usage as then the connection will be most likely the bottleneck.

If ab stops dead after a few thousand requests, check the number of not completely closed sockets. Might be that LiteSpeed uses something like a linger setting which might be bad in such a local loop test scenario. Then you'd have to run multiple tests with only 10000 (or whatever still works) and compare the averages for the contestants.

[zellster]

I would be interested in any benchmarks that compare LiteSpeed and Accoria's Rock web server: http://www.accoria.com/cgi-bin/load?...20Web%20Server

Does anyone have any experience or feedback on this product?

[mistwang]

Interesting product. :-)
Benchmarked it a little bit, LiteSpeed Enterprise is about 15%-30% faster than Rock on a simple small static file test, for both non-keepalive and keepalive.

[MindTooth]

I know this is an old thread, but better to use this one already.

Please include a benchmark of Cherokee Web Server as well. Just tried it, and it works great. Easy to set up PHP.

[NiteWave]

FYI -- there are some recent benchmark results in our blog.

[MindTooth]

None that inculdes Cherokee. But thanks for the heads-up.