nginx performance test
ultraice at gmail.com
Sat Jan 30 15:14:04 MSK 2010
for proxy, can nginx give an new option, for example
client_max_body_size_in_buffer, it will be served synchronously from
if client body size is greater than client_max_body_size_in_buffer ?
2010/1/30 Dennis J. <dennisml at conversis.de>
> Is there a page about performance optimizations in the wiki? If not I think
> it would be useful to create one so this and other performance related
> information can be collected there.
> On 01/29/2010 04:44 PM, 任晓磊 wrote:
>> One thing we must do is tuning. Your experience on temp files is useful
>> for me.
>> 2010/1/29 yong xue<ultraice at gmail.com>:
>>> last week, I did a nginx performance test.
>>> Yes, with no surprise, nginx is perfect.
>>> First, I proxyed 15 web hosts after nginx, the cpu utilization and
>>> IO were a little high, this was cause by the file download and access
>>> after I closed the access log, and changed the download to
>>> synchronization by set proxy_max_temp_file_size to zero, nginx run with
>>> little CPU consumption.
>>> So I turned more web hosts after nginx, the disk IO became some high
>>> again, this was caused by uploading, so I changed the
>>> to a tmpfs,
>>> and disk IO disappear, and the bottleneck was the memory capacity.
>>> Finally with 50+ web host proxyed, the nginx host's CPU utilization
>>> about 30%, and the client_body_tmp_path occupied 4-6G, the peak
>>> of each network
>>> adater was 400-450M.
>>> It is a good result. Thanks you, sysoev.
>>> Best Regards,
>>> e-mail:ultraice at gmail.com <e-mail%3Aultraice at gmail.com>
>>> nginx mailing list
>>> nginx at nginx.org
> nginx mailing list
> nginx at nginx.org
e-mail:ultraice at gmail.com <e-mail%3Aultraice at gmail.com>
MSN:it at easy-boarding.com <MSN%3Ait at easy-boarding.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the nginx