proxy performance

Has anybody compared the performance apache 1.3.x running as a proxy
server (using mod_proxy) against apache 2.0 (using worker-mpm) ?

-sumeet

Re: proxy performance

We had tried this sometime back, and apache 2.0 was giving about 1.5 times
the performance. But I didn't do any fine tuning stuff, so am not sure how
reliable these numbers are. Anyways, the proxy forwarding is still giving
terrible performance (as compared to running it just as a webserver) --
about 2-2.5 times worse.

-- Pavan

=======================================================
Pavan Balaji, | 774, Dreese Labs,
1584, Worthington St, | 2015, Neil Avenue,
Columbus, OH43201 | Columbus, OH43210
(614) 327 0973 | (614) 292 8458
=======================================================

"Being happy doesn't mean that everything's perfect... It just means that
you have decided to see Beyond the Imperfections" -- Rash

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Sumeet Singh wrote:

> Has anybody compared the performance apache 1.3.x running as a proxy
> server (using mod_proxy) against apache 2.0 (using worker-mpm) ?
>
> -sumeet
>

Re: proxy performance

Pavan Balaji wrote:

>We had tried this sometime back, and apache 2.0 was giving about 1.5 times
>the performance. But I didn't do any fine tuning stuff, so am not sure how
>reliable these numbers are. Anyways, the proxy forwarding is still giving
>terrible performance (as compared to running it just as a webserver) --
>about 2-2.5 times worse.
>
>
>
Do you mean to say that when run as a proxy, apache 2.0 with worker-mpm
does worse than apache 1.3 ? That's surprising, because none of the
docs/articles that I have read have pointed out such a severe shortage
in performance (p.s. I am not saying that your results were wrong).

-sumeet

> -- Pavan
>
> =======================================================
> Pavan Balaji, | 774, Dreese Labs,
> 1584, Worthington St, | 2015, Neil Avenue,
> Columbus, OH43201 | Columbus, OH43210
> (614) 327 0973 | (614) 292 8458
> =======================================================
>
>"Being happy doesn't mean that everything's perfect... It just means that
>you have decided to see Beyond the Imperfections" -- Rash
>
>On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Sumeet Singh wrote:
>
>
>
>>Has anybody compared the performance apache 1.3.x running as a proxy
>>server (using mod_proxy) against apache 2.0 (using worker-mpm) ?
>>
>>-sumeet
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Re: proxy performance

No. I meant apache 2.0 was giving about 1.5 times better performance :-).
Sorry about the confusion.

-- Pavan

=======================================================
Pavan Balaji, | 774, Dreese Labs,
1584, Worthington St, | 2015, Neil Avenue,
Columbus, OH43201 | Columbus, OH43210
(614) 327 0973 | (614) 292 8458
=======================================================

"Being happy doesn't mean that everything's perfect... It just means that
you have decided to see Beyond the Imperfections" -- Rash

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Sumeet Singh wrote:

> Pavan Balaji wrote:
>
> >We had tried this sometime back, and apache 2.0 was giving about 1.5 times
> >the performance. But I didn't do any fine tuning stuff, so am not sure how
> >reliable these numbers are. Anyways, the proxy forwarding is still giving
> >terrible performance (as compared to running it just as a webserver) --
> >about 2-2.5 times worse.
> >
> >
> >
> Do you mean to say that when run as a proxy, apache 2.0 with worker-mpm
> does worse than apache 1.3 ? That's surprising, because none of the
> docs/articles that I have read have pointed out such a severe shortage
> in performance (p.s. I am not saying that your results were wrong).
>
> -sumeet
>
> > -- Pavan
> >
> > =======================================================
> > Pavan Balaji, | 774, Dreese Labs,
> > 1584, Worthington St, | 2015, Neil Avenue,
> > Columbus, OH43201 | Columbus, OH43210
> > (614) 327 0973 | (614) 292 8458
> > =======================================================
> >
> >"Being happy doesn't mean that everything's perfect... It just means that
> >you have decided to see Beyond the Imperfections" -- Rash
> >
> >On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Sumeet Singh wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Has anybody compared the performance apache 1.3.x running as a proxy
> >>server (using mod_proxy) against apache 2.0 (using worker-mpm) ?
> >>
> >>-sumeet
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: proxy performance

Pavan Balaji wrote:

>No. I meant apache 2.0 was giving about 1.5 times better performance :-).
>Sorry about the confusion.
>
>
>
Thanks.

Btw, can you expand on the following ?

"Anyways, the proxy forwarding is still giving terrible performance (as compared to running it just as a webserver) -- about 2-2.5 times worse."


-sumeet

> -- Pavan
>
> =======================================================
> Pavan Balaji, | 774, Dreese Labs,
> 1584, Worthington St, | 2015, Neil Avenue,
> Columbus, OH43201 | Columbus, OH43210
> (614) 327 0973 | (614) 292 8458
> =======================================================
>
>"Being happy doesn't mean that everything's perfect... It just means that
>you have decided to see Beyond the Imperfections" -- Rash
>
>On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Sumeet Singh wrote:
>
>
>
>>Pavan Balaji wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>We had tried this sometime back, and apache 2.0 was giving about 1.5 times
>>>the performance. But I didn't do any fine tuning stuff, so am not sure how
>>>reliable these numbers are. Anyways, the proxy forwarding is still giving
>>>terrible performance (as compared to running it just as a webserver) --
>>>about 2-2.5 times worse.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Do you mean to say that when run as a proxy, apache 2.0 with worker-mpm
>>does worse than apache 1.3 ? That's surprising, because none of the
>>docs/articles that I have read have pointed out such a severe shortage
>>in performance (p.s. I am not saying that your results were wrong).
>>
>>-sumeet
>>
>>
>>
>>>-- Pavan
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> Pavan Balaji, | 774, Dreese Labs,
>>> 1584, Worthington St, | 2015, Neil Avenue,
>>> Columbus, OH43201 | Columbus, OH43210
>>> (614) 327 0973 | (614) 292 8458
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>"Being happy doesn't mean that everything's perfect... It just means that
>>>you have decided to see Beyond the Imperfections" -- Rash
>>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Sumeet Singh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Has anybody compared the performance apache 1.3.x running as a proxy
>>>>server (using mod_proxy) against apache 2.0 (using worker-mpm) ?
>>>>
>>>>-sumeet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>

Re: proxy performance

What I mean is, when I send requests directly to the webserver, I get
about 3.5K transactions per second (per server). But when I add the proxy
to forward all requests to the webserver, I get about 1.7K transactions
per second. I expect some drop in performance, but this seems a little too
much. If you have any insights about something I'm probably missing, I'll
be glad to try it out.

Thanks,

-- Pavan

=======================================================
Pavan Balaji, | 774, Dreese Labs,
1584, Worthington St, | 2015, Neil Avenue,
Columbus, OH43201 | Columbus, OH43210
(614) 327 0973 | (614) 292 8458
=======================================================

"Being happy doesn't mean that everything's perfect... It just means that
you have decided to see Beyond the Imperfections" -- Rash

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Sumeet Singh wrote:

> Pavan Balaji wrote:
>
> >No. I meant apache 2.0 was giving about 1.5 times better performance :-).
> >Sorry about the confusion.
> >
> >
> >
> Thanks.
>
> Btw, can you expand on the following ?
>
> "Anyways, the proxy forwarding is still giving terrible performance
> (as compared to running it just as a webserver) -- about 2-2.5 times
> worse."
>
>
> -sumeet
>
> > -- Pavan
> >
> > =======================================================
> > Pavan Balaji, | 774, Dreese Labs,
> > 1584, Worthington St, | 2015, Neil Avenue,
> > Columbus, OH43201 | Columbus, OH43210
> > (614) 327 0973 | (614) 292 8458
> > =======================================================
> >
> >"Being happy doesn't mean that everything's perfect... It just means that
> >you have decided to see Beyond the Imperfections" -- Rash
> >
> >On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Sumeet Singh wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Pavan Balaji wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>We had tried this sometime back, and apache 2.0 was giving about 1.5 times
> >>>the performance. But I didn't do any fine tuning stuff, so am not sure how
> >>>reliable these numbers are. Anyways, the proxy forwarding is still giving
> >>>terrible performance (as compared to running it just as a webserver) --
> >>>about 2-2.5 times worse.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Do you mean to say that when run as a proxy, apache 2.0 with worker-mpm
> >>does worse than apache 1.3 ? That's surprising, because none of the
> >>docs/articles that I have read have pointed out such a severe shortage
> >>in performance (p.s. I am not saying that your results were wrong).
> >>
> >>-sumeet
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>-- Pavan
> >>>
> >>> =======================================================
> >>> Pavan Balaji, | 774, Dreese Labs,
> >>> 1584, Worthington St, | 2015, Neil Avenue,
> >>> Columbus, OH43201 | Columbus, OH43210
> >>> (614) 327 0973 | (614) 292 8458
> >>> =======================================================
> >>>
> >>>"Being happy doesn't mean that everything's perfect... It just means that
> >>>you have decided to see Beyond the Imperfections" -- Rash
> >>>
> >>>On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Sumeet Singh wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Has anybody compared the performance apache 1.3.x running as a proxy
> >>>>server (using mod_proxy) against apache 2.0 (using worker-mpm) ?
> >>>>
> >>>>-sumeet
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>