Comparing with a friend the PN0.8 SVN20071007 (almost
RC2) with Joomla 1.5
RC3, here are the Benchmarks results.
Important Note:
This is over a desktop PC, nothing compared with a server hardware capabilities. Just Ubuntu 7.04 with
xampp 1.6.4 (Apache/2.2.6 PHP/5.2.4)
PostNuke 0.8
pnRender & Theme cache enabled, template check disabled.
Not using sessions for unregistereds.
root@se16:/opt/lampp
# ab -t 10 -c 60 localhost/postnukeThis is ApacheBench, Version
2.0.40-dev <
$Revision:
1.146 $> apache
-2.0Copyright
1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http:
//www.zeustech.net/Copyright
2006 The Apache Software Foundation, http:
//www.apache.org/Benchmarking localhost
(be patient
)Completed
5000 requests
Completed 10000 requests
Completed 15000 requests
Finished 16154 requests
Server Software: Apache/2.2.6
Server Hostname: localhost
Server Port: 80
Document Path: /postnuke
Document Length: 404 bytes
Concurrency Level: 60
time taken for tests: 10.1123 seconds
Complete requests: 16154
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Non-2xx responses: 16163
Total transferred: 11718175 bytes
HTML transferred: 6529852 bytesRequests per second:
1615.22 [#/sec] (mean)time per request:
37.147 [ms
] (mean
)time per request:
0.619 [ms
] (mean, across all concurrent requests
)Transfer rate:
1144.17 [Kbytes/sec
] received
Connection Times
(ms
) min mean
[sd
] median
maxConnect:
0 2 2.0 2 26Processing:
5 33 99.9 32 8701Waiting:
4 31 99.8 29 8696Total:
8 36 99.8 34 8701Percentage of the requests served within a certain
time (ms
) 50%
34 66%
35 75%
35 80%
35 90%
35 95%
37 98%
42 99%
49 100%
8701 (longest request
)
Joomla 1.5 RC3
Cache enabled (it seems that enabling the cache in Joomla is worst that have it disabled

, without cache complete 1807.98 requests per second)
root@se16:/opt/lampp
# ab -t 10 -c 60 localhost/joomlaThis is ApacheBench, Version
2.0.40-dev <
$Revision:
1.146 $> apache
-2.0Copyright
1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http:
//www.zeustech.net/Copyright
2006 The Apache Software Foundation, http:
//www.apache.org/Benchmarking localhost
(be patient
)Completed
5000 requests
Completed 10000 requests
Completed 15000 requests
Finished 15479 requests
Server Software: Apache/2.2.6
Server Hostname: localhost
Server Port: 80
Document Path: /joomla
Document Length: 402 bytes
Concurrency Level: 60
time taken for tests: 10.408 seconds
Complete requests: 15479
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Non-2xx responses: 15486
Total transferred: 11165406 bytes
HTML transferred: 6225372 bytesRequests per second:
1547.84 [#/sec] (mean)time per request:
38.764 [ms
] (mean
)time per request:
0.646 [ms
] (mean, across all concurrent requests
)Transfer rate:
1090.26 [Kbytes/sec
] received
Connection Times
(ms
) min mean
[sd
] median
maxConnect:
0 0 0.1 0 3Processing:
5 33 23.5 35 1423Waiting:
5 32 4.8 35 345Total:
7 33 23.5 35 1423Percentage of the requests served within a certain
time (ms
) 50%
35 66%
36 75%
36 80%
36 90%
36 95%
37 98%
40 99%
45 100%
1423 (longest request
)
Clean installations,
Andreas08
PN theme vs default Joomla theme,
PN: Who's online, Main Menu, Login block. Two News articles.
Joomla: Who's online, Main Menu, Login Form, Two News articles (mods, components, whatever!) all the rest disabled!
Obviously, i'm not a Joomla fan but my friend yes, and the results with the phisical order of
PN, and the cache results, give him some reasons to think that
PN is better.
Just to think a little, i'm happy with the pnRender performance, and with the cache design off course, i know that can be improved in a further, because with cache and without
PN cache, the difference is minus than 100 request per second...
--
-
Mateo T. -
Mis principios... son mis fines