G-WAN assumptions: Part of truth/lies?

Steve Holdoway 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:
>         Hello,
>         Documentating myself on proper benchmarking, I ran into the
>         following page:
>         http://gwan.com/en_apachebench_httperf.html
>         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
>         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.
> _______________________________________________
> nginx mailing list
> nginx at nginx.org
> http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx

Steve Holdoway BSc(Hons) MIITP
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/steveholdoway
Skype: sholdowa

More information about the nginx mailing list