G-WAN assumptions: Part of truth/lies?
steve at greengecko.co.nz
Mon Feb 9 00:30:51 UTC 2015
And of course, you should ask what the relevance of delivering a single,
100byte file a huge number of times actually has in real life, or where
useful things - like comparison of server side languages behind various
web servers - are tested.
And yes, any web servers latency should be approximately zero for
testing delivery of a static file locally ( also pointless ).
returning empty_gif, rather than nop.gif is also exercising internal
code, rather than just delivering a file, so the processing is not
saving open file metadata may also help, but the test is so skewed and
unrealistic it's not really worth the effort.
That's just my view as a SysAdmin
On Sun, 2015-02-08 at 00:52 +0100, B.R. wrote:
> 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)
> B. R.
> 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 grounded.
> Particular points:
> - Is their nginx configuration suitable for valid benchmark
> - 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.
> nginx mailing list
> nginx at nginx.org
Steve Holdoway BSc(Hons) MIITP
More information about the nginx