📄 performance-benchmarks.xtp
字号:
<document> <header> <product>resin</product> <version>Resin 3.1</version> <title>Resin Benchmarks</title> <description> <p>This document describes our performance benchmarks. As always, no artificial benchmark can replace measuring your own application with your own configuration and load.</p> </description> </header> <body> <s1 title="Resin v. Apache"> <p>Resin is an excellent web server for both static pages and for load-balancing to multiple backend application servers. For a web-tier server, static page performance and load-balance performance are both important, as is the ability to <a href="proxy-cache.xtp">proxy cache</a> pages. The following benchmarks give a quick comparison between Resin and Apache as web-tier servers: both are very close in performance, although Resin is slightly faster than Apache in most of these cases.</p> <p>These results were benchmarked with Resin 3.1.0 and Apache 2.2.3 with a pair of Debian Linux machines using a 1G ethernet. Resin's proxy cache was disabled to match Apache's default no proxy-cache configuration, but no other special configurations were applied to either server.</p> <p>The first set of benchmarks compare static page serving using a 1k page to simulate small image files and a 64k page to simulate normal web pages. For the small pages, Resin was about 5% faster than Apache, and for large pages, the two are essentially identical.</p> <deftable title="Static Pages"> <tr> <th></th> <th>Resin (ops per second)</th> <th>Apache (ops per second)</th> </tr> <tr> <th>1k html (1 client, 1 keepalive)</th> <td>3,537 OPS</td> <td>3,287 OPS</td> </tr> <tr> <th>1k html (10 client, 4 keepalive)</th> <td>19,568 OPS</td> <td>16,466 OPS</td> </tr> <tr> <th>64k html (1 client, 1 keepalive)</th> <td>874 OPS</td> <td>859 OPS</td> </tr> <tr> <th>64k html (10 client, 4 keepalive)</th> <td>1,800 OPS</td> <td>1,804 OPS</td> </tr> </deftable> <p>The second set of benchmarks compare load balancing of JSP pages to a backend Resin server. Both a 1k page and a 64k page were simulated. For comparison, the performance of Resin serving the same JSP page as a standalone HTTP server is also provided. Again, for small pages Resin is about 5-10% faster than Apache and is essentially identical for larger pages.</p> <deftable title="Load Balancing for Resin JSP"> <tr> <th></th> <th>Resin Load Balancing</th> <th>Apache Load Balancing</th> <th>Resin Standalone</th> </tr> <tr> <th>1k jsp (1 client, 1 keepalive)</th> <td>2,269 OPS</td> <td>1,989 OPS</td> <td>3,903 OPS</td> </tr> <tr> <th>1k jsp (10 client, 4 keepalive)</th> <td>14,119 OPS</td> <td>10,351 OPS</td> <td>26,620 OPS</td> </tr> <tr> <th>64k jsp (1 client, 1 keepalive)</th> <td>579 OPS</td> <td>604 OPS</td> <td>826 OPS</td> </tr> <tr> <th>64k jsp (10 client, 4 keepalive)</th> <td>1,668 OPS</td> <td>1,661 OPS</td> <td>1,799 OPS</td> </tr> </deftable> <s2 title="Caveats"> <p>As always, no artificial benchmark can replace measuring your own application with your own configuration and load. In most cases, other considerations like the application performance and database performance will dominate the performance (although <a href="proxy-cache.xtp">proxy caching</a> can make slow applications run as fast as static pages.) These numbers in particular are a trivial tests with a simple load. They do measure the maximum performance of the web server, so they are valuable information, but they are very different from a benchmark of a complete application.</p> <p>Warnings aside, these results do indicate that many sites should seriously consider using Resin as their web-tier load-balancing server. (After benchmarking your own application, of course.)</p> </s2> </s1> </body></document>⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -