Apache vs ioFTPD :p

[darkone]

I just did some sieging for fun (debian; apt-get install siege-ssl, siege -u http://address.to.siege/)

ioFTPD (p4 1800):

Transactions: 19625 hits
Availability: 100.00 %
Elapsed time: 19.45 secs
Data transferred: 101127625 bytes
Response time: 0.01 secs
Transaction rate: 1009.00 trans/sec
Throughput: 5199363.55 bytes/sec <<= 5mb/sec
Concurrency: 12.97
Successful transactions: 19625
Failed transactions: 0

Apache (duron 933):

Transactions: 5363 hits
Availability: 100.00 %
Elapsed time: 11.93 secs
Data transferred: 5824218 bytes
Response time: 0.03 secs
Transaction rate: 449.54 trans/sec
Throughput: 488199.32 bytes/sec <<= 500kb/sec
Concurrency: 12.45
Successful transactions: 5363
Failed transactions: 0

Not bad from ftpd, uhh?

[Zer0Racer]

Does CPU performance play any part in this?

[GOD-EMPEROR]

I would imagine the mem bw plays a bigger role than raw cpu for raw http gets.... if the page was dynamically created from various sources like database and long parameters to decipher that might be another story

btw duron's are supposed to be multiples of 50

[Zer0Racer]

Then let's assume the Duron uses SDRAM and the P4 DDR. SDRAM CL2 on crappy VIA chipset can handle ~1000MB data per second and regular DDR memory also on VIA chipset can easily handle 2000MB/s (SiSoft Sandra mem benchmark).

Then let's assume performance in the test above is very memory speed dependent - we double the Apache values. ioFTPD would still have twice the amount of transactions, five times higher throughput and still higher transaction rate.

Conclusion: ioFTPD is still faster.

[darkone]

pages were static, so memory speed is irrelevant... I'm sure that figures were completely different on apache2, which uses threaded model. Afak amd cpus have stronger integer performance, so cpu speed difference isn't that great. Anyways, no matter how you put it; 1000 connections per second, is a lot