Apache Performance

Apache, Lighttpd, nginx, Cherokee
User avatar
Joe User
Project Manager
Project Manager
Posts: 11140
Joined: 2003-02-27 01:00
Location: Hamburg

Apache Performance

Post by Joe User » 2011-01-27 14:28

Ist Apache wirklich so langsam wie oft behauptet?

Unoptimierter Apache:

Code: Select all

# ab -c 100 -n 1500 http://www.rootforum.org/
This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 655654 $>
Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/
Licensed to The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/

Benchmarking www.rootforum.org (be patient)
Completed 150 requests
Completed 300 requests
Completed 450 requests
Completed 600 requests
Completed 750 requests
Completed 900 requests
Completed 1050 requests
Completed 1200 requests
Completed 1350 requests
Completed 1500 requests
Finished 1500 requests


Server Software:        Apache/2.2.17
Server Hostname:        www.rootforum.org
Server Port:            80

Document Path:          /
Document Length:        12163 bytes

Concurrency Level:      100
Time taken for tests:   0.087 seconds
Complete requests:      1500
Failed requests:        0
Write errors:           0
Total transferred:      18637500 bytes
HTML transferred:       18244500 bytes
Requests per second:    17162.08 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request:       5.827 [ms] (mean)
Time per request:       0.058 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate:          208241.04 [Kbytes/sec] received

Connection Times (ms)
              min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
Connect:        0    0   0.3      0       1
Processing:     1    5   0.7      6       8
Waiting:        1    5   0.7      5       6
Total:          3    6   0.5      6       9
WARNING: The median and mean for the processing time are not within a normal deviation
        These results are probably not that reliable.

Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
  50%      6
  66%      6
  75%      6
  80%      6
  90%      6
  95%      6
  98%      6
  99%      6
 100%      9 (longest request)

:-??

SCNR
PayPal.Me/JoeUser ● FreeBSD Remote Installation
Wings for Life ● Wings for Life World Run

„If there’s more than one possible outcome of a job or task, and one
of those outcomes will result in disaster or an undesirable consequence,
then somebody will do it that way.“ -- Edward Aloysius Murphy Jr.
Top
User avatar
daemotron
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2635
Joined: 2004-01-21 17:44

Re: Apache Performance

Post by daemotron » 2011-01-27 15:13

Nein, Apache ist nicht generell langsam(er) als andere Webserver (mit einigen Ausnahmen, wenn es um event scheduling geht). Aber Apache benötigt für dieselbe Performance mehr Ressourcen als ein leichtgewichtigerer Server wie Lighty - das jedoch nur bis zu dem Punkt, ab dem Apache aufgrund seiner Prozessarchitektur weiter skalieren kann, anderen Webservern jedoch die Puste ausgeht.
“Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible to do it. If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.” — Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time
Top
User avatar
rudelgurke
Posts: 406
Joined: 2008-03-12 05:36

Re: Apache Performance

Post by rudelgurke » 2011-02-02 23:10

Habe noch gute Erfahrungen mit Nginx / Varnish als vorgeschaltetem Reverse Proxy gemacht. Gerade um statische Inhalte zu cachen.
Selbst wenn die auf der gleichen Maschine laufen lohnt manchmal der Einsatz.
Top
maike
Posts: 8
Joined: 2008-01-04 10:24

Re: Apache Performance

Post by maike » 2011-03-20 15:47

Ich bin eigentlich auch Apache Fan, aber wir haben letzten Nginx testweise ausprobiert und konnten eine ca. 15% bessere Performance feststellen. Das kommt natürlich auch immer drauf an wie gut der Apache optimiert ist. Von der Pflege und Konfiguration her gefällt mir Apache immer noch am besten.
Top

Return to “Webserver”