G-WAN assumptions: Part of truth/lies?
reallfqq-nginx at yahoo.fr
Sat Feb 7 23:52:27 UTC 2015
One forgotten specific point I also wanted a reply upon:
- Why is nginx' latency that high (200ms) while serving the built-in
nop.gif content? (cf. 'The (long) story of Nginx's "wrk"' section)
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:39 AM, B.R. <reallfqq-nginx at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Documentating myself on proper benchmarking, I ran into the following page:
> Their conclusion is that their product is the best of all. Well, 'of
> course' one might say... ;o)
> What surprised me most that they claim to use less resources AND perform
> better. That particularly strikes me because usually ot favor one side, you
> take blows on the other one.
> To me, the problem of such tests is that they are a mix of
> realistic/unrealistic behaviors, the first being invoked to justify useful
> conclusions, the latter to make a specific environment so that features
> from the Web server (as opposed to other components of the infrastructure)
> are tested.
> They are arrogant enough to claim theirs is bigger and paranoid enough to
> call almost every other benchmark biased or coming from haste/FUD
> campaigns. That is only OK if they are as pure as the driven snow...
> I need expert eyes of yours to determine to which end those claims are
> Particular points:
> - Is their nginx configuration <http://gwan.com/source/nginx.conf>
> suitable for valid benchmark results?
> - Why is your wrk test tool built in such way in pre-establishes TCP?
> - Why is nginx pre-allocating resources so its memory footprint is large
> when connections are pre-established? I thought nginx event-based system
> was allocating resources on-the-fly, as G-WAN seems to be doing it. (cf.
> 'The (long) story of Nginx's "wrk"' section)
> - Why is wrk (in G-WAN's opinion) 'too slow under 10,000 simultaneous
> connections'? (cf. 'The (long) story of Nginx's "wrk"' section)
> *B. R.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the nginx