Comment Here are the numbers (Score 4) 119
This won't format quite right since Slashdot doesn't accept the "pre" tag (why?)...
HTTPD Web Application Env Hits/s Operating Sys. Chip Session Client HTTP/x By
----- ------------------- ------ -------------- ---- ------- ------ ------ --
*apache 1.3.6 static html 996.41 Linux 2.2.10 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
*apache 1.3.6 mod_perl 518.24 Linux 2.2.10 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
*apache 1.3.6 C/C++ cgi executable 210.19 Linux 2.2.10 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
*apache 1.3.6 perl cgi 7.22 Linux 2.2.10 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
*apache 1.3.6 static html 1183.64 FreeBSD 3.2 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
*apache 1.3.6 mod_perl 568.28 FreeBSD 3.2 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
*apache 1.3.6 C/C++ cgi executable 154.94 FreeBSD 3.2 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
*apache 1.3.6 perl cgi 6.94 FreeBSD 3.2 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
As extracted from this post on the mod_perl mailing list which summarizes all the results of everyone so far.
Here is the author's summary:
Subject: Benchmarks
Author: Chip Turner
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:40:44 -0400 (EDT)
As promised, I've run some benchmarks under Linux and FreeBSD comparing
Perl CGI, C CGI, flat html, and mod_perl. I've tried to duplicate the
methodology used by the benchmarks posted here in the past. The results
were fairly interesting. If anything can be concluded, it is that Perl
CGI is dead for serious web development. It's just way, way, way too
slow. Apache::Regostry can improve this (and I've not tested how much of
an effect it would have), but 7 requests per second compared to about 550
requests per second with mod_perl is _quite_ a significant gap.
Another interesting result is that for non-CGI requests, FreeBSD seems to
be about 10% faster than Linux in the mod_perl and flat html tests.
The info, including httpd.conf, the test script, and other info is
available at http://perl.pattern.net/bench/. Any feedback is definitely
welcome. If there is much interest, I can add an Apache::Registry version
of bench.cgi to the test, as well as a C Hello World Apache module.
(perl.pattern.net is a new DNS entry, so it might not have propogated yet.
Hopefully it will within a few hours.)
Chip
as found here.
HTTPD Web Application Env Hits/s Operating Sys. Chip Session Client HTTP/x By
----- ------------------- ------ -------------- ---- ------- ------ ------ --
*apache 1.3.6 static html 996.41 Linux 2.2.10 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
*apache 1.3.6 mod_perl 518.24 Linux 2.2.10 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
*apache 1.3.6 C/C++ cgi executable 210.19 Linux 2.2.10 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
*apache 1.3.6 perl cgi 7.22 Linux 2.2.10 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
*apache 1.3.6 static html 1183.64 FreeBSD 3.2 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
*apache 1.3.6 mod_perl 568.28 FreeBSD 3.2 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
*apache 1.3.6 C/C++ cgi executable 154.94 FreeBSD 3.2 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
*apache 1.3.6 perl cgi 6.94 FreeBSD 3.2 PIII-500 no ab 1.0 ct
As extracted from this post on the mod_perl mailing list which summarizes all the results of everyone so far.
Here is the author's summary:
Subject: Benchmarks
Author: Chip Turner
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:40:44 -0400 (EDT)
As promised, I've run some benchmarks under Linux and FreeBSD comparing
Perl CGI, C CGI, flat html, and mod_perl. I've tried to duplicate the
methodology used by the benchmarks posted here in the past. The results
were fairly interesting. If anything can be concluded, it is that Perl
CGI is dead for serious web development. It's just way, way, way too
slow. Apache::Regostry can improve this (and I've not tested how much of
an effect it would have), but 7 requests per second compared to about 550
requests per second with mod_perl is _quite_ a significant gap.
Another interesting result is that for non-CGI requests, FreeBSD seems to
be about 10% faster than Linux in the mod_perl and flat html tests.
The info, including httpd.conf, the test script, and other info is
available at http://perl.pattern.net/bench/. Any feedback is definitely
welcome. If there is much interest, I can add an Apache::Registry version
of bench.cgi to the test, as well as a C Hello World Apache module.
(perl.pattern.net is a new DNS entry, so it might not have propogated yet.
Hopefully it will within a few hours.)
Chip
as found here.
