Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scaling Server Performance

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the caching-for-fun-and-profit dept.

An anonymous reader writes "When Ace's Hardware's article Hitchhiker's Guide to the Mainframe was posted on Slashdot, they got 590,000 hits and over 250,000 page requests during one day. This kind of traffic caused only a 21% average CPU load to their Java-based web server, which is powered by a single 550MHz UltraSparc-II CPU. In their newest article, Scaling Server Performance, Ace's Hardware explains how this was possible."

15 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Time to break the record? by FelixCat · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now if they could use the same technology to create a web surfing client which generates that many hits with the same CPU load. Then you could put them together on the same network, and ....

  2. How they did it... by darkov · · Score: 4, Funny

    they got 590,000 hits and over 250,000 page requests during one day. This kind of traffic caused only a 21% average CPU load ... they didn't respond to any of them.

    --
    Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
  3. So the article on preventing the /. effect ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Funny
    will be tested to see if it's meaningful. I like that. That is definitely putting your money where your mouth is.

    Of course, it is incumbent upon all of us to rush out and try to the link to the article. And some of us to actually read it as opposed to just reading the title.

    1. Re:So the article on preventing the /. effect ... by hondo77 · · Score: 3, Funny

      At least you got to start reading it. It wouldn't even come up for me. On the bright side, I now know I don't need to read it...

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  4. <blows horn> by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    This kind of traffic caused only a 21% average CPU load to their Java-based web server, which is powered by a single 550MHz UltraSparc-II CPU. In their newest article, Scaling Server Performance, Ace's Hardware explains how this was possible.
    Battlestations!

    SLASHDOT THEM AGAIN!!!
  5. Re:More. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm on it

  6. yes. by krog · · Score: 5, Funny

    seeing as it took Slashdot 35 seconds to serve me up this comments.pl?op-Reply page, yes, i think we are supposed to be impressed.

    --
    Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
  7. jeez by tps12 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Can you say dry? 290,000 whatever, 21% something, 550 MHz, blah blah blah....

    I'm not a computer, I'm a person. Give me graphs or don't bother.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
  8. Getting it right the first time? by ites · · Score: 4, Funny
    >Wagner LLC Consulting Co. - Getting it right the first time
    >Garth Brooks covers this in his famous book "The Mythical Man Month" where he proves in a controled lab environment that Java under X86 runs on the order of Olog(n) slower than it does on a RISC chip like an UltraSparc.

    WTF? Fred Brooks wrote this book, and I don't seem to remember RISC or UltraSparc chips, not to mention Java, in 1974. Garth Brooks is (AFAIK) a country music singer. Try again.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
  9. We Win! by PhoenxHwk · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The page cannot be displayed".

    The lesson here is: put your money where your mouth is and you may end up eating it.

  10. Re:Maybe by Enry · · Score: 3, Funny

    I prefer reading "The Mythical Man Month" in the original latin. Brooks' translation leaves much to be desired.

  11. Re:only 600, 000 per day? by Chester+K · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I was benchmarking web servers in *1994*, servers could handle 100,000/hr, which is only about 30/sec.

    But this is a Java-based server we're talking about.

    --

    NO CARRIER
  12. Re:Server performance in 1994 by LilGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I remember back in 1986 my Web-Enabled Elmo Daemon (WEED) was pretty lazy. But he sure could take hits. I think somewhere along the lines of 500 a day.

    --

    You're nothing; like me.
  13. Re:only 600, 000 per day? by mark_lybarger · · Score: 2, Funny

    yeah but the blink tag was right around the corner! didn't over load server much, but ensured the clints had a swell time viewing.

  14. Re:only 600, 000 per day? by FyRE666 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, but each one of those wizbang annoyances is just another hit to the server. dynamic generation of pages is the real server killer, depending on how much hoop-de-loop you're going through to make them.
    Maybe it's just late, but I'm having a problem following all this technical jargon ;-)

    --
    Code, Hardware, stuff like that.