[Cherokee] Benchmarks of cherokee vs nginx

[Jędrzej Nowak]

Well...

You compared cherokee without GZIP to nginx with GZIP... And you're
comparing a memory used by cache...
It's a miss point.

Greetings,
Jędrzej Nowak



On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Ryan B <mp3geek at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm guessing any form of vps setup's would have issues with
> benchmarking.. I was hardly going to run this on my home connection or
> pay for a uber dedi. I'm not trying to play favourites, I'm just
> comparing the difference between the 2 web servers running on my vps,
> and its pretty obvious looking a long/short-term graphs, using the "oh
> you're on a openvz/vps, therefore this doesn't count" card doesn't
> hold.
>
> The graphs don't deviate much. The node isn't under any great load,
> and it would show in the graphs (I could post longer 2-3-4 days but
> they're pretty much the same).
>
>
> 2011/5/25 Tony Zakula <tonyzakula at gmail.com>:
>>> Both web servers packages are compiled on ubuntu 11.04/openvz hosting.
>>
>> Using openvz hosting?  That is not even a real test.  There are so
>> many variables, tweaks and adjustments when using OpenVZ that you
>> could not possibly count on that bench mark even if you controlled the
>> server.  If you are using a hosting providers server, it makes it even
>> more nebulous because they will be using their own controls.  The
>> memory and processing units are not even for real memory.   With
>> OpenVZ you can tweak those at will.
>>
>> The only way to get real benchmarks is on a real machine.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>> 2011/5/24 Jędrzej Nowak <me at pigmej.eu>:
>>> Hmm
>>>
>>> You can easy compress things in cherokee too. Just enable it in
>>> cherokee-admin ;-)
>>> For "gzip static" like behaviour you need to enable flcache (with
>>> PURGE support for your config).
>>>
>>> IOCache in cherokee is caching only plain files when you don't use
>>> gzip... That's why.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Jędrzej Nowak
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Ryan B <mp3geek at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> This is static content (only http, and no php enabled), also using
>>>> gzip-static.in nginx (cache-io doesn't quite cut it in cherokee)
>>>>
>>>> I found the cache too aggressive in cherokee, if I upload a newer file
>>>> I'd still keep serving the the cached file for a while (I wasn't
>>>> actually sure when it actually expired).. so I manually lowered the
>>>> expiry time for the cache (900secs), performance dives :/
>>>>
>>>> Okay a quick break down of the stats..
>>>>
>>>> Nginx-generated traffic is cut in half (thanks to gzip-static)  vs Cherokee
>>>> Nginx: 118Mb Ram, Cherokee: 260Mb
>>>> CPU: nginx is by-far using less, that race isn't even close.
>>>>
>>>> A break down, http://i.imgur.com/JVO1w.png
>>>>
>>>> Both web servers packages are compiled on ubuntu 11.04/openvz hosting.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Cherokee mailing list
>>>> Cherokee at lists.octality.com
>>>> http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cherokee mailing list
>>> Cherokee at lists.octality.com
>>> http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Cherokee mailing list
> Cherokee at lists.octality.com
> http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
>