Re: NetSplat and WebCat2

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

1997

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 11662
interpreted = N
texte = >Hi all,>>I've been setting up my server(PwrMac 7100/66) and WebCat2 site and>decided to try some simulated traffic with Maxum's NetSplat.>NetSplat is a small application that can simulate web client loads of>more than 2500 connections per minute. (Like I'm going to get that>many.)>I set the client load to 60 with random delays of no more than 1 second>between requests. I set WebSTAR (it has 50mbs of RAM assigned to it) to>a max 25 connections. The page requests in the test, included one large>GIF, one small, one straight HTML page, and one .tmpl page that>generates a new cart. These are randomly requested.>I started the simulation and the server churned along great.>Then I logged on and started to cruise the site during the test.>It delivered pages a little slower than I had been seeing but not much.>Then I hit the WebCat2 search .tmpl pages, I could see the server>completely stop serving the other simulated requests. I assume, the CPU>was dedicated solely to WebCat at that point. Then when the search was>complete, the server resumed sending pages.>Back on my browser I awaited the search results. What I got was a>partial page. I tried my search again, and got another partial page.>I went back to WebSTAR and lowered the max connections to 9 and ran the>same NetSplat configuration with much more success but still>occasionally got a partial page from a search request.>>My questions, for those who have gone before, is this...>>Is NetSplat a worthy indicator of high traffic problems?>Is 60 clients requesting pages every half second or so heavy traffic?>Is this a fair test for WebCat searches?>And why the partial pages? Why not just a server busy try back later?>>>-->Eddie Schrieffer>The Creative Edgethen grant said....>Can you try this test with the plugin instead of the CGI and see if>there's a difference? Thanks!>>Grant Hulbert, V.P. Engineering | ===== Tools for WebWarriors =====>Pacific Coast Software | WebCatalog Pro, WebCommerce Solution>11770 Bernardo Plaza Court | SiteEdit Pro, SiteCheck, PhotoMaster>San Diego, CA 92128 | SiteGuard>619/675-1106 Fax: 619/675-0372 | http://www.smithmicro.comWe also use a 7100/66 webstar 2.0.2...we find the following performancerelative to webcat2.0f3 not using netsplat. MacTCP2.0.6 beats OT whateverhands down on this type of Mac (Nubus...we have 2 other 6100/66 webserversthat run macTCP because OT was way slower) If the search/results templatehas a lot...I mean a lot to display (seehttp://www.panavise.com/comm/indash/idbrand.html) the .acgi responds betterthen the plug-in. The plug-in works much faster if the search/resultstemplate is smaller in the quantity of what it has to display. Now willthe final release of WebCat Gold plug-in vs .acgi be equall? The issomething Grant would have to tell you relative to stack space for plug-insand memory allocation, etc. Today we are running our site on the .acgi.We have been switching back and forth between the plug-in and the .acgiabout every 5 to 7 days to compare how people feel about our site and it'sresponse time.I would be curious also if you are using the webstar cache plug-in forimages and if you are running all .html through webcat, or just .tmpl's?PS: If you think webcatalog is slow from your test....think about usingFMpro3.0 and whatever to interface with WebStar....:)===============================================Gary Richter PanaVise Products, Inc. 7540 Colbert Dr. Reno, Nevada 89511 Ph: 702.850.2900 Fx: 702.850.2929 Email: grichter@panavise.com http://www.panavise.com=============================================== Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Re: NetSplat and WebCat2 (bob 1997)
Re: NetSplat and WebCat2 (grichter@panavise.com (Gary Richter) 1997)
Re: NetSplat and WebCat2 (Grant Hulbert 1997)
NetSplat and WebCat2 (Eddie Schrieffer 1997)

>Hi all,>>I've been setting up my server(PwrMac 7100/66) and WebCat2 site and>decided to try some simulated traffic with Maxum's NetSplat.>NetSplat is a small application that can simulate web client loads of>more than 2500 connections per minute. (Like I'm going to get that>many.)>I set the client load to 60 with random delays of no more than 1 second>between requests. I set WebSTAR (it has 50mbs of RAM assigned to it) to>a max 25 connections. The page requests in the test, included one large>GIF, one small, one straight HTML page, and one .tmpl page that>generates a new cart. These are randomly requested.>I started the simulation and the server churned along great.>Then I logged on and started to cruise the site during the test.>It delivered pages a little slower than I had been seeing but not much.>Then I hit the WebCat2 search .tmpl pages, I could see the server>completely stop serving the other simulated requests. I assume, the CPU>was dedicated solely to WebCat at that point. Then when the search was>complete, the server resumed sending pages.>Back on my browser I awaited the search results. What I got was a>partial page. I tried my search again, and got another partial page.>I went back to WebSTAR and lowered the max connections to 9 and ran the>same NetSplat configuration with much more success but still>occasionally got a partial page from a search request.>>My questions, for those who have gone before, is this...>>Is NetSplat a worthy indicator of high traffic problems?>Is 60 clients requesting pages every half second or so heavy traffic?>Is this a fair test for WebCat searches?>And why the partial pages? Why not just a server busy try back later?>>>-->Eddie Schrieffer>The Creative Edgethen grant said....>Can you try this test with the plugin instead of the CGI and see if>there's a difference? Thanks!>>Grant Hulbert, V.P. Engineering | ===== Tools for WebWarriors =====>Pacific Coast Software | WebCatalog Pro, WebCommerce Solution>11770 Bernardo Plaza Court | SiteEdit Pro, SiteCheck, PhotoMaster>San Diego, CA 92128 | SiteGuard>619/675-1106 Fax: 619/675-0372 | http://www.smithmicro.comWe also use a 7100/66 webstar 2.0.2...we find the following performancerelative to webcat2.0f3 not using netsplat. MacTCP2.0.6 beats OT whateverhands down on this type of Mac (Nubus...we have 2 other 6100/66 webserversthat run macTCP because OT was way slower) If the search/results templatehas a lot...I mean a lot to display (seehttp://www.panavise.com/comm/indash/idbrand.html) the .acgi responds betterthen the plug-in. The plug-in works much faster if the search/resultstemplate is smaller in the quantity of what it has to display. Now willthe final release of WebCat Gold plug-in vs .acgi be equall? The issomething Grant would have to tell you relative to stack space for plug-insand memory allocation, etc. Today we are running our site on the .acgi.We have been switching back and forth between the plug-in and the .acgiabout every 5 to 7 days to compare how people feel about our site and it'sresponse time.I would be curious also if you are using the webstar cache plug-in forimages and if you are running all .html through webcat, or just .tmpl's?PS: If you think webcatalog is slow from your test....think about usingFMpro3.0 and whatever to interface with WebStar....:)===============================================Gary Richter PanaVise Products, Inc. 7540 Colbert Dr. Reno, Nevada 89511 Ph: 702.850.2900 Fx: 702.850.2929 Email: grichter@panavise.com http://www.panavise.com=============================================== grichter@panavise.com (Gary Richter)

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Re: NetSplat and WebCat2

1997

Top Articles:

Related Readings: