headers
Jack | 2 May 2008 10:42
Picon

0.6 for Windows?

Hi,

It seems that 0.6 for Windows is not available yet? Any chance it'll
be available soon?

Thanks.
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Jack | 2 May 2008 10:46
Picon

Production Windows Server

I'm looking for a web server for my Windows production box. I suppose
most people are using cherokee on Linux. Anyone using the Windows
version on a production server? Is it stable for long time (months and
years) use?

Thanks for any input.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 2 May 2008 15:32
Picon

Re: 0.6 for Windows?

On 2 May 2008, at 10:42, Jack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems that 0.6 for Windows is not available yet? Any chance it'll
> be available soon?

It is definitely on the TODO list, although I have not a releasing  
date yet.
I hope we'll have it within the next two or three weeks.

--
Greetings, alo.
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Jack | 2 May 2008 17:18
Picon

Re: 0.6 for Windows?

Thanks Alvaro. Looking forward to it!

I wasn't able to find a list of new features in 0.6, compared with
previous versions. The "learn more" part of the site points right to
0.6 documentation. Is there a list somewhere?

> > It seems that 0.6 for Windows is not available yet? Any chance it'll
> > be available soon?
> >
>
>  It is definitely on the TODO list, although I have not a releasing date
> yet.
>  I hope we'll have it within the next two or three weeks.
>
>  --
>  Greetings, alo.
>
>
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Jack | 2 May 2008 17:58
Picon

Performance test data and likely memory leak: 0.54 for Windows

Since I didn't have much experience with Cherokee, I did some (brutal)
apache ab testing last night with 0.54 Windows version.

The good news is, Cherokee completed one million static requests and
one million scgi dynamic requests in about 3 hours, most successfully.
5 requests failed to connect in each group, I'm not sure about the
reason. Two ab commands started at about the same time. see detailed
data below.

The test also seems to have revealed a memory leak. When the test was
done, cherokee process took about 100MB memory (it started with
2.5MB.) I wasn't sure if the leak was from static requests or dynamic
requests. So I re-did 10,000 request with a static page, and didn't
observe memory leak. In the dynamic page tests, memory usage kept
growing, at the speed of around 100 bytes per request. When the load
stopped, the memory didn't get released.

Not sure if this has also been observed on Linux?

The scgi performance was quite impressive. I'm not sure about the
details of Cherokee's scgi and fcgi implementation. In my testing, a
multi-threaded scgi back-end written in Python was much faster
handling concurrent requests than a single-threaded fcgi backend
written in a compiled language, when the number of concurrent requests
was more than 5. But dealing with continuous but non-concurrent
requests, the natively compiled fastcgi takes about 40% of the time of
what it takes the scgi Python app to handle a request. This tells me
that the Python scgi backend (web.py) is able to cope with pretty
heavy traffic, which will be a bit less than half of the ultimate
capacity that could be achieved by running a server pool of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Taher Shihadeh | 2 May 2008 18:09

Re: 0.6 for Windows?

Hi Jack.

The official release anouncement might help: http://www.cherokee-project.com/pipermail/cherokee/2008-March/002609.html
Besides, there is always the Changelog ;-)

Regards,
Taher

On Friday 02 May 2008 17:18:11, Jack wrote:
> Thanks Alvaro. Looking forward to it!
> 
> I wasn't able to find a list of new features in 0.6, compared with
> previous versions. The "learn more" part of the site points right to
> 0.6 documentation. Is there a list somewhere?

--

-- 
taher <at> unixwars.com
http://unixwars.com
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Stefan de Konink | 2 May 2008 18:17
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Performance test data and likely memory leak: 0.54 for Windows

On Fri, 2 May 2008, Jack wrote:

> The test also seems to have revealed a memory leak. When the test was
> done, cherokee process took about 100MB memory (it started with
> 2.5MB.) I wasn't sure if the leak was from static requests or dynamic
> requests. So I re-did 10,000 request with a static page, and didn't
> observe memory leak. In the dynamic page tests, memory usage kept
> growing, at the speed of around 100 bytes per request. When the load
> stopped, the memory didn't get released.

VERY GOOD! I'm happy you found it! I think this accounts for my previous
problems too.

> Not sure if this has also been observed on Linux?

Yes, under Linux this was also found. I only don't know if it was a
memoryleak resulting in high load (due to swapping) or something else.

Stefan
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 3 May 2008 05:27
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Performance test data and likely memory leak: 0.54 for Windows

On 2 May 2008, at 18:17, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008, Jack wrote:
>
>> The test also seems to have revealed a memory leak. When the test was
>> done, cherokee process took about 100MB memory (it started with
>> 2.5MB.) I wasn't sure if the leak was from static requests or dynamic
>> requests. So I re-did 10,000 request with a static page, and didn't
>> observe memory leak. In the dynamic page tests, memory usage kept
>> growing, at the speed of around 100 bytes per request. When the load
>> stopped, the memory didn't get released.
>
> VERY GOOD! I'm happy you found it! I think this accounts for my  
> previous
> problems too.
>
>> Not sure if this has also been observed on Linux?
>
> Yes, under Linux this was also found. I only don't know if it was a
> memoryleak resulting in high load (due to swapping) or something else.

This is the first notice I have got about this.. I'm checking it right  
away.

Thanks for reporting Jack!!

--
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com/
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 3 May 2008 05:26
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: 0.6 for Windows?

Hi Taher and Jack,

A comprehensive new feature list is an important nice-to-have that we  
missed for Cherokee 0.6. There was a huge number of changes between  
Cherokee 0.5 and 0.6 that would be really hard to summarize. However,  
in my understanding the two major improvements (among many) were:

  - Cherokee-admin: It does no longer require the user to edit a text  
file
  - Speed: it is even faster than Cherokee 0.5.

Anyway, you can expect a much better "New Features" list for the  
upcoming 0.7 release.

On 2 May 2008, at 18:09, Taher Shihadeh wrote:
> Hi Jack.
>
> The official release anouncement might help: http://www.cherokee-project.com/pipermail/cherokee/2008-March/002609.html
> Besides, there is always the Changelog ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Taher
>
> On Friday 02 May 2008 17:18:11, Jack wrote:
>> Thanks Alvaro. Looking forward to it!
>>
>> I wasn't able to find a list of new features in 0.6, compared with
>> previous versions. The "learn more" part of the site points right to
>> 0.6 documentation. Is there a list somewhere?
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 3 May 2008 23:07
Picon

Re: Performance test data and likely memory leak: 0.54 for Windows

On 3 May 2008, at 05:27, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
> On 2 May 2008, at 18:17, Stefan de Konink wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 May 2008, Jack wrote:
>>
>>> The test also seems to have revealed a memory leak. When the test  
>>> was
>>> done, cherokee process took about 100MB memory (it started with
>>> 2.5MB.) I wasn't sure if the leak was from static requests or  
>>> dynamic
>>> requests. So I re-did 10,000 request with a static page, and didn't
>>> observe memory leak. In the dynamic page tests, memory usage kept
>>> growing, at the speed of around 100 bytes per request. When the load
>>> stopped, the memory didn't get released.
>>
>> VERY GOOD! I'm happy you found it! I think this accounts for my  
>> previous
>> problems too.
>>
>>> Not sure if this has also been observed on Linux?
>>
>> Yes, under Linux this was also found. I only don't know if it was a
>> memoryleak resulting in high load (due to swapping) or something  
>> else.
>
> This is the first notice I have got about this.. I'm checking it  
> right away.

Could you please guys give more details on how to reproduce it? I have  
tried to reproduce this but I haven't succeeded. The only leak I have  
found was a 16 bytes long buffer that was unreferred during the server
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane