<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Elliott C. Back &#187; Performance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://elliottback.com/wp/category/computers-technology/web-20/performance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://elliottback.com/wp</link>
	<description>Internet &#38; Technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:59:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Western Digital ShareSpace 4TB Gigabit NAS Review</title>
		<link>http://elliottback.com/wp/western-digital-sharespace-4tb-gigabit-nas-review/</link>
		<comments>http://elliottback.com/wp/western-digital-sharespace-4tb-gigabit-nas-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Elliott Back</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Computers & Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Performance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elliottback.com/wp/archives/2008/10/05/western-digital-sharespace-4tb-gigabit-nas-review/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gizmodo has a new review of the Western Digital Sharespace 4TB personal NAS product that just came out, and it&#8217;s absolutely glowing:
Western Digital&#8217;s ShareSpace Storage is a steely, cubular vault of NAS with fast Gigabit ethernet that brings enterprise-level centralized storage down to the small business and deathcore nerd space.

For $999 you get 4TB of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gizmodo has a new review of the <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5057625/western-digital-sharespace-4tb-gigabit-nas-lightning-review">Western Digital Sharespace 4TB</a> personal NAS product that just came out, and it&#8217;s absolutely glowing:</p>
<blockquote><p>Western Digital&#8217;s ShareSpace Storage is a steely, cubular vault of NAS with fast Gigabit ethernet that brings enterprise-level centralized storage down to the small business and deathcore nerd space.</p></blockquote>
<p><img id="image2769" src="http://elliottback.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/wd-sharespace.jpg" alt="wd-sharespace.jpg" /></p>
<p>For $999 you get 4TB of storage (2.66TB actually free w/ RAID5), sluggish transfer speeds (10.5MB/s writing and 12MB/s pulling data), three USB ports, and Gigabit ethernet.  You could get a faster Drobo <a href="http://drobo.com/Where_to_Buy/Index.html">for $100 more</a>.  And, in my tests, <a href="http://elliottback.com/wp/archives/2008/08/24/drobo-benchmark/">the better looking Drobo gets 16MB/s</a>, and is also hot-swappable.  You can buy the enclosure and put in 1.5TB drives to get a 6TB rig if you are so inclined, something that&#8217;s less possible with the prepackaged WD NAS solution.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve had bad experience with Western Digital internal/external hard drives; they just die on me (and all the friends I know) a lot.  But, I don&#8217;t own a WD NAS, so if you have one, let me know your thoughts!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://elliottback.com/wp/western-digital-sharespace-4tb-gigabit-nas-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WP Super Cache Benchmark</title>
		<link>http://elliottback.com/wp/wp-super-cache-benchmark/</link>
		<comments>http://elliottback.com/wp/wp-super-cache-benchmark/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:38:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Elliott Back</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plugins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scalability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wordpress]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elliottback.com/wp/archives/2008/09/28/wp-super-cache-benchmark/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you&#8217;ve thought about whether upgrading from WP Cache 2.0 to WP Super Cache is a good idea, hopefully this benchmark will convince you.  I followed my instructions on benchmarking Wordpress with Apache Bench on four configurations of this blog&#8217;s main page to measure performance: 

Without any caching plugins
With WP Cache 2.0
With WP Super [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you&#8217;ve thought about whether upgrading from <a href="http://mnm.uib.es/gallir/wp-cache-2/">WP Cache 2.0</a> to <a href="http://ocaoimh.ie/wp-super-cache/">WP Super Cache</a> is a good idea, hopefully this benchmark will convince you.  I followed my instructions on <a href="http://elliottback.com/wp/archives/2008/01/14/benchmarking-wordpress-with-apache-bench/">benchmarking Wordpress with Apache Bench</a> on four configurations of this blog&#8217;s main page to measure performance: </p>
<ol>
<li>Without any caching plugins</li>
<li>With WP Cache 2.0</li>
<li>With WP Super Cache (no compression)</li>
<li>With WP Super Cache (compression enabled)</li>
</ol>
<p><img id="image2759" src="http://elliottback.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/wp-caching-plugins.png" alt="wp-caching-plugins.png" /></p>
<p>The results show that <strong>WP Super Cache</strong> is a clear winner, performing 225% better than the older WP Cache.  Here is the raw data I gathered during the test:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>No caching:</strong><br />
Requests per second:    22.81 [#/sec] (mean)<br />
Time per request:       4383.559 [ms] (mean)<br />
Time per request:       43.836 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)<br />
Transfer rate:          613.75 [Kbytes/sec] received</p>
<p><strong>WP cache:</strong><br />
Requests per second:    872.30 [#/sec] (mean)<br />
Time per request:       114.640 [ms] (mean)<br />
Time per request:       1.146 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)<br />
Transfer rate:          23549.46 [Kbytes/sec] received</p>
<p><strong>Super cache (no compression):</strong><br />
Requests per second:    1518.90 [#/sec] (mean)<br />
Time per request:       65.837 [ms] (mean)<br />
Time per request:       0.658 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)<br />
Transfer rate:          41150.81 [Kbytes/sec] received</p>
<p><strong>Super cache (compression):</strong><br />
Requests per second:    1960.39 [#/sec] (mean)<br />
Time per request:       51.010 [ms] (mean)<br />
Time per request:       0.510 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)<br />
Transfer rate:          53108.70 [Kbytes/sec] received</p></blockquote>
<p>For more tips on how to improve your Wordpress performance, check out <a href="http://elliottback.com/wp/archives/2007/04/15/why-my-wordpress-site-is-so-much-faster-than-yours/">Wordpress Performance: Why My Site Is So Much Faster Than Yours</a>. Another interesting WP caching plugin is <a href="http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/batcache/">Batcache</a>, which uses the memcached backend to serve requests out of a cluster of machines&#8217; RAM memory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://elliottback.com/wp/wp-super-cache-benchmark/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FCC Definition for Broadband now 768Kbps</title>
		<link>http://elliottback.com/wp/fcc-definition-for-broadband-now-768kbps/</link>
		<comments>http://elliottback.com/wp/fcc-definition-for-broadband-now-768kbps/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:31:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Elliott Back</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DSL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Downloads]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Performance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elliottback.com/wp/archives/2008/03/22/fcc-definition-for-broadband-now-768kbps/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to the FCC, the term &#8220;broadband&#8221; now means 768Kbps, up from the previous definition of 200Kbps.  Under the new definition, &#8220;basic broadband&#8221; defines download speeds between 768Kbps and 1.5Mbps.  Other changes in how subscribers are reported includes a breakdown of upload and download speed and additional gradations of speed.  News dot [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to the FCC, the term &#8220;broadband&#8221; now means 768Kbps, up from the previous definition of 200Kbps.  Under the new definition, &#8220;basic broadband&#8221; defines download speeds between 768Kbps and 1.5Mbps.  Other changes in how subscribers are reported includes a breakdown of upload and download speed and additional gradations of speed.  <a href="http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9898118-7.html">News dot COM</a> notes that &#8220;ISPs will not have to report the prices they charge, yet.&#8221;</p>
<p>For comparison&#8217;s sake, an average movie download is 700 MB (5872025600 bits), and would take 8.16 hours to download under the old broadband definition at 200Kbps.  However, at the new faster rate of 768Kbps, an American with basic broadband will be able to download a movie in just 2.12 hours.</p>
<p>Broadband reporting is a problem for America, because up till now we could only point to <a href="http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0802/">useless studies</a> indicating that 12.5% of internet users are still on 56.6k or worse speeds.  Once politicians and the industry realizes how bad broadband penetration in the US really is, we&#8217;ll see better internet service and connectivity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://elliottback.com/wp/fcc-definition-for-broadband-now-768kbps/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ruby vs PHP Performance Revisited</title>
		<link>http://elliottback.com/wp/ruby-vs-php-performance-revisited/</link>
		<comments>http://elliottback.com/wp/ruby-vs-php-performance-revisited/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:24:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Elliott Back</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scalability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elliottback.com/wp/archives/2008/01/17/ruby-vs-php-performance-revisited/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ignoring any of Hongli Lai&#8217;s actual code, I reran the PHP, Ruby, C++, Perl, and Python mergesort benchmarks he gave, and came up with substantially different results.  Here are the versions of the programming languages I am using for the test:

PHP &#8211; PHP 5.1.6 (cli) (built: Sep 18 2007 09:07:28)
Ruby &#8211; ruby 1.8.5 (2007-09-24 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ignoring any of <a href="http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/01/17/ruby-vs-php-performance/">Hongli Lai&#8217;s actual code</a>, I reran the PHP, Ruby, C++, Perl, and Python mergesort benchmarks he gave, and came up with substantially different results.  Here are the versions of the programming languages I am using for the test:</p>
<ul>
<li>PHP &#8211; PHP 5.1.6 (cli) (built: Sep 18 2007 09:07:28)</li>
<li>Ruby &#8211; ruby 1.8.5 (2007-09-24 patchlevel 114) [x86_64-linux]</li>
<li>Perl &#8211; This is perl, v5.8.8 built for x86_64-linux-thread-multi</li>
<li>Python &#8211; Python 2.4.4 (#1, Oct 23 2006, 13:58:18)</li>
<li>C++ &#8211; gcc version 4.1.2 20070626 (Red Hat 4.1.2-13)</li>
<li>Java &#8211; Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_10-ea-b10)</li>
</ul>
<p>You&#8217;ll notice I&#8217;m adding Java into the mix for fun.  Here&#8217;s the results, over 10 runs, on an Intel Dual-core 1.80GHz machines with 2Gb of RAM currently running this website:</p>
<p><img id="image2534" src="http://elliottback.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/mergesort-performance.png" alt="mergesort-performance.png" /></p>
<pre>Lang	Average	Min	Max
PHP	8.8325	8.637	9.303
Ruby	7.2896	7.143	7.729
Perl	4.3231	4.262	4.428
Python	3.3465	3.289	3.417
C++	0.5638	0.53	0.609
Java	0.4062	0.262	0.551</pre>
<p>There are a couple important conclusions to note here that are significantly different than Hongli Lai&#8217;s:</p>
<ul>
<li>PHP is 21% slower than Ruby, not 41% as in his benchmark</li>
<li>Python is 29% faster than Perl, not 17% as in his benchmark</li>
<li>Java runs this 39% faster than C++, and 2100% faster than PHP</li>
</ul>
<p>So, PHP is slower than Ruby, but not quite as slow as Hongli Lai would have you believe.  Python is the fastest scripting language in this benchmark, while Java is the faster language all around, and is incredibly, incredibly fast.  Maybe all of our code should start using java!</p>
<blockquote><p><small>* NOTE:  I am ignoring the obvious deficiencies of this micro-benchmark and just trying to reduplicate it.  What I&#8217;ve found is that there are significant discrepancies between Hongli Lai&#8217;s run of the tests and my own, probably owing to slightly different versions of the components involved.  Also, if I make some trivial optimizations to the loops in the PHP script, I can get it to run faster than everything but C++, in about 2.4s.  Then again, just calling <em>sort()</em> is faster by another two orders&#8230; but still half as slow as Java&#8217;s built-in sort&#8230; and two orders slower than perl&#8217;s built-in.</small></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://elliottback.com/wp/ruby-vs-php-performance-revisited/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benchmarking Wordpress with Apache Bench</title>
		<link>http://elliottback.com/wp/benchmarking-wordpress-with-apache-bench/</link>
		<comments>http://elliottback.com/wp/benchmarking-wordpress-with-apache-bench/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:38:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Elliott Back</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scalability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elliottback.com/wp/archives/2008/01/14/benchmarking-wordpress-with-apache-bench/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A lot of people talk about Wordpress performance, and how to get a webserver to perform as efficiently as possible.  However, without a quantifiable methodology to testing website performance, you can&#8217;t actually talk about it.  ApacheBench (ab) is the solution to the problem of measuring website performance.  What is ApacheBench?  The [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lot of people talk about Wordpress performance, and how to get a webserver to perform as efficiently as possible.  However, without a quantifiable methodology to testing website performance, you can&#8217;t actually talk about it.  ApacheBench (ab) is the solution to the problem of measuring website performance.  What is ApacheBench?  The man page provides a suitable answer:</p>
<blockquote><p>ab &#8211; Apache HTTP server benchmarking tool</p>
<p>ab  is  a tool for benchmarking your Apache Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) server. It is designed to give you an  impression  of  how  your current  Apache  installation  performs.  This especially shows you how many requests per second your Apache installation is capable  of  serving.</p></blockquote>
<p>If you have installed apache or apache-devel, you should be to simple invoke <em>ab</em> by typing it on the command line.  For example, to benchmark my own site here, I would write:</p>
<p><code> [root ~]# ab -n 10000 -c 100 http://elliottback.com/wp/ </code></p>
<p>This says &#8220;make 10,000 concurrent requests to host elliottback.com via http and request /wp/ on 100 threads.&#8221;  The result of this is the following report:</p>
<blockquote><p>This is ApacheBench, Version 2.0.40-dev < $Revision: 1.146 $> apache-2.0<br />
Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/<br />
Copyright 2006 The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/</p>
<p>Benchmarking elliottback.com (be patient)<br />
Completed 1000 requests<br />
Completed 2000 requests<br />
Completed 3000 requests<br />
Completed 4000 requests<br />
Completed 5000 requests<br />
Completed 6000 requests<br />
Completed 7000 requests<br />
Completed 8000 requests<br />
Completed 9000 requests<br />
Finished 10000 requests</p>
<p>Server Software:        Apache/2.2.6<br />
Server Hostname:        elliottback.com<br />
Server Port:            80</p>
<p>Document Path:          /wp/<br />
Document Length:        34331 bytes</p>
<p>Concurrency Level:      100<br />
Time taken for tests:   13.596345 seconds<br />
Complete requests:      10000<br />
Failed requests:        0<br />
Write errors:           0<br />
Total transferred:      346230000 bytes<br />
HTML transferred:       343310000 bytes<br />
Requests per second:    735.49 [#/sec] (mean)<br />
Time per request:       135.963 [ms] (mean)<br />
Time per request:       1.360 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)<br />
Transfer rate:          24868.08 [Kbytes/sec] received</p>
<p>Connection Times (ms)<br />
              min  mean[+/-sd] median   max<br />
Connect:        0    0   1.6      0      20<br />
Processing:     8  134  12.7    132     190<br />
Waiting:        4  134  12.7    132     190<br />
Total:         16  134  12.1    132     190</p>
<p>Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)<br />
  50%    132<br />
  66%    134<br />
  75%    136<br />
  80%    137<br />
  90%    145<br />
  95%    160<br />
  98%    175<br />
  99%    179<br />
 100%    190 (longest request)</p></blockquote>
<p>According to these numbers, my dual core server can do 750 requests per second, fulfilling each within about 150ms each.  That&#8217;s pretty fast, probably because I know the secrets of <a href="http://elliottback.com/wp/archives/2007/04/15/why-my-wordpress-site-is-so-much-faster-than-yours/">Wordpress Optimization</a>.  If you make every layer as fast as it can be, and cache heavily, you too can see lightening fast Wordpress installations!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://elliottback.com/wp/benchmarking-wordpress-with-apache-bench/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
