Comments on: Wordpress benchmarks running on Nginx, Php, Apache and Fastcgi http://www.megaburst.com/load-balancing/wordpress-benchmarks-running-on-nginx-php-apache-and-fastcgi/ High performance web site building Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:02:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Sutekin http://www.megaburst.com/load-balancing/wordpress-benchmarks-running-on-nginx-php-apache-and-fastcgi/comment-page-1/#comment-1505 Sutekin Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:37:40 +0000 http://www.megaburst.com/?p=44#comment-1505 Your interperation of results is totally false. There is a bottleneck on apache side and %88.3 of requests returned blank/error pages. Btw lets go for real result interperation 1000 pages at 103430 ms = 103.4 ms per page on avarage 117 pages at 16653 ms = 142.3 ms per page on avarage NGX rocks ever time.. Your interperation of results is totally false.

There is a bottleneck on apache side and %88.3 of requests returned blank/error pages.

Btw lets go for real result interperation

1000 pages at 103430 ms = 103.4 ms per page on avarage

117 pages at 16653 ms = 142.3 ms per page on avarage

NGX rocks ever time..

]]> By: Anon http://www.megaburst.com/load-balancing/wordpress-benchmarks-running-on-nginx-php-apache-and-fastcgi/comment-page-1/#comment-1124 Anon Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:03:23 +0000 http://www.megaburst.com/?p=44#comment-1124 Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 883 (Connect: 0, Length: 883, Exceptions: 0) Write errors: 0 Non-2xx responses: 883 Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Non-2xx responses: 900 Am I reading this correctly? Does this mean out of 1000 requests only 100 or so were served properly? Complete requests: 1000
Failed requests: 883
(Connect: 0, Length: 883, Exceptions: 0)
Write errors: 0
Non-2xx responses: 883

Complete requests: 1000
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Non-2xx responses: 900

Am I reading this correctly? Does this mean out of 1000 requests only 100 or so were served properly?

]]> By: victori http://www.megaburst.com/load-balancing/wordpress-benchmarks-running-on-nginx-php-apache-and-fastcgi/comment-page-1/#comment-918 victori Thu, 25 Sep 2008 06:54:01 +0000 http://www.megaburst.com/?p=44#comment-918 60req/sec using page cache? ... is hitting the PHP interpreter that slow? Consider using nginx's memcached page cache method instead to avoid the php interpreter all together. On our site using Java+Jetty+Hibernate+Spring+Wicket stack we easily pull 60req/sec on heavy dynamic page and. >250req/sec on simple dynamic pages (hibernate 2nd level SQL cache rocks hard). oh and we also hit digg multiple times, I Honestly expected a larger spike in traffic than what we got from our few digg effects. -Victor 60req/sec using page cache? … is hitting the PHP interpreter that slow? Consider using nginx’s memcached page cache method instead to avoid the php interpreter all together.

On our site using Java+Jetty+Hibernate+Spring+Wicket stack we easily pull 60req/sec on heavy dynamic page and. >250req/sec on simple dynamic pages (hibernate 2nd level SQL cache rocks hard).

oh and we also hit digg multiple times, I Honestly expected a larger spike in traffic than what we got from our few digg effects.

-Victor

]]> By: Kai http://www.megaburst.com/load-balancing/wordpress-benchmarks-running-on-nginx-php-apache-and-fastcgi/comment-page-1/#comment-445 Kai Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:37:51 +0000 http://www.megaburst.com/?p=44#comment-445 Thanks for your comment. We will check it out and post feedback after a few tests etc. Thanks for your comment. We will check it out and post feedback after a few tests etc.

]]> By: mike503 http://www.megaburst.com/load-balancing/wordpress-benchmarks-running-on-nginx-php-apache-and-fastcgi/comment-page-1/#comment-404 mike503 Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:55:17 +0000 http://www.megaburst.com/?p=44#comment-404 Forget about spawn-fcgi. Use php-fpm. Forget about spawn-fcgi. Use php-fpm.

]]>