Slashdot Mirror


Scaling Server Performance

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."

6 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Ones that crashs by MCMLXXVI · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would be more interested in stats on a webserver that took a puke. It would be interesting to see what started the dominos falling and what ultimatly brought it down. It would be as good a learning experiance as this article is.

  2. you're thinking of static pages by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Those guys are using persistant server-side applications. Try getting those numbers from a reasonably complex PHP script, even with an opcode cache on such a small box( see my sig. for more info)

    Lots of people could use this type performance. I only had a chance to use JSP on one project, a while back. Tomcat was notoriously difficult to install back then. But when it was up, the difference between JSP application server and PHP become apparent. Application servers can make quite the difference.

    Just having an application scope for variables saved us a trip the the ldap server per request. PostNUKE, squirellmail, and lots of other large PHP apps could be sped up drastically if some of those features were available in the PHP engine.

    --
    Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
  3. looks like they spoke too soon... by pjrc · · Score: 4, Interesting
    To point out the obvious, it looks like they're slashdotted.

    Reloading their page a couple times (2nd page of the article, not the one slashdot linked to), I'm getting occasional 503 errors, and the rest are taking a very long time to load. Usually the page comes up with some "broken" images that didn't load.

    At the bottom of each page, there's a number that seems to indicate the time they believe their server spent serving the page. Usually is says something like "2 ms" or "3 ms"... That may be how long their code spent creating the html, but the real world performance I see (via a 1.5 Mbit/sec DSL line) is many seconds for the html and many more for the images, some of which never show up, and sometimes a 503 error instead of anything useful at all.

    So, Brian, if you're reading this comment (which will probably be worthy of "redundant" moderation by the time I hit the Submit button)... it ain't workin' as well as you think. Maybe the next article will be an explaination of what went wrong this time, and you can try again???

  4. big difference between 1am and 2pm! by ledbetter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember reading that original article, and yes, I was impressed at the responsiveness of the server. But before they are congratulated so much, consider this. The original story was posted on slashdot at 1AM.. so the initial spike of activity resulting from the linking being in the top few on Slashdot was directly proportional to the number of people on Slashdot at the time. As you can see from their graphs (if they're showing up for you) that traffic spiked, then continued on during the day.

    This time around, the link got posted at 2PM not 1AM, and so far as I can see, they handle this flurry of hits much less gracefully than the previous ones! There are a lot more people online at 2PM than 1AM (all arguments of nocturnal nighthawks and people in other time zones aside).

  5. Re:6 per second. by mrtroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    perhaps. perhaps id be impressed if their cpu could keep up with the hits IF THEIR BANDWIDTH COULD KEEP UP
    *REQUEST TIMED OUT*
    My 1ghz server with 3 terrabytes of ram can handle any traffic you can throw at it!!! Now to upgrade that 56k....

    Burning karma :(

    --
    [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
  6. Re:That's hardly impressive by shoppa · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I agree, dynamic content is very much more challenging - but is it wise for Ace's (or any of the other sites) who are serving up static stories to do so through dynamic methods?

    I am familiar with serving dynamic content of very high information density, and let me tell you, Ace's doesn't compare. The data I serve from work is updated every second; the stories on Ace's (and most other hardware-review sites) change every couple of days.