[Mongrel] Mongrel performing only half as fast as Apache?
chris at codeintensity.com
Tue Feb 27 22:39:21 EST 2007
When you are testing Apache, is it configured exactly the same as when you
are using it to front Mongrel? i.e. do you have the mod_proxy_balancer
module setup and configured, with Mongrel running, etc.? I am doing that.
So, it's likely I could get it faster if I didn't have any of that.
On 2/27/07, Kirk Haines <wyhaines at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/07, Christopher Bailey <chris at codeintensity.com> wrote:
> > What I'm running into is that Mongrel appears only half as fast as
> > when serving a small static HTML file. If I then add in Apache with
> > mod_proxy_balancer, going to a single Mongrel, it drops down to nearly
> > a third of what pure static Apache will do. This seems bogus to me, and
> > suspect I have either some configuration problem, or something. My
> > understanding from what I've read is that Mongrel should be fairly close
> > Apache when serving static content (at least not only 50% as fast). Is
> > right as a generalization?
> That may not be far off at all, and that difference between going
> directly to Mongrel versus going through Apache with proxying that you
> report is about what I have seen.
> > - Just Apache, num-conns=15000, ~1400 req/sec
> That actually seems really slow. My box is a lot slower than yours
> (dual 2ghz 32 bit AMD processors on 2gb RAM, older kernel, slower
> disk), and I get twice that speed through Apache (2.0) to a small
> static file. About 2800/second.
> > - Direct to Mongrel on port 5000, num-conns=8000, ~740 req/sec
> This is close to what I have seen in my direct-to-mongrel tests,
> though I get speeds that are a little bit higher. In the 800+
> req/second range. I don't think anything is wrong with your tests.
> Kirk Haines
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mongrel-users