Re: [WebDNA] Speed test: Maxed out Mac mini
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2013
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 110346
interpreted = N
texte = --Apple-Mail=_C1CDCCC1-B710-4669-8E10-DFD24CB55C77Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableContent-Type: text/plain;charset=windows-1252Nice, Brian :-)Encouraging.=20On 2013-04-18, at 7:10 PM, Brian Fries wrote:> Just a bit of an FYI / brag=85>=20> I just got our new Mac mini server set up. This is fully maxed out on =the Apple store - 2.6GHz i7, 16 GB RAM, dual 250GB SSD drives, $1999 US.>=20> Set up with WebDNA Server 6.2, and the first thing I did was pull out =the old WebDNA speed test:>=20> http://www.euca.us/webdnatest/show_speed.html>=20> The previous top score was held by "Core2Duo E8400 @3.0ghz, 2GB Ram, =400GB SATA HDD, CentOS 5.3 (Final), Cicada 6.2 Apache 2.2.13">=20> This mini will be replacing a 2.5 year old Mac mini server, spec'ed as =2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, dual 7200 RPM 500GB disks.>=20> New miniOld miniOld =Record Holder> Total Ticks151191166=09> % Improvement--26%10%>=20> In these results, the first 2 seconds of the test are simply a 2 =second delay used to see how many ticks are in 2 seconds, and has no =bearing on the system's performance. Subtracting out those 2 seconds, =the results are much more dramatic:>=20> New miniOld miniOld =Record Holder> Test-Only Ticks307944> % Improvement--163%47%>=20> The "Test-Only Ticks" results subtract out the first 121-122 ticks of =the test, which is simply a 2 second delay used to see how many ticks =are in 2 seconds, and has no bearing on the system's performance.>=20> I expect the performance difference will be even greater than this =when used with very large databases, due to the speed of the SSD, and =with multiple simultaneous requests, due to the additional processing =cores.>=20> So far, very pleased. We have some upcoming projects that will involve =millions of database records, and this should provide enough performance =improvement to make that feasible.>=20> - Brian Fries> --------------------------------------------------------- This message =is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To =unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: =http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: =support@webdna.us--Apple-Mail=_C1CDCCC1-B710-4669-8E10-DFD24CB55C77Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableContent-Type: text/html;charset=windows-1252Nice, =Brian :-)
Encouraging.
On =2013-04-18, at 7:10 PM, Brian Fries wrote:
Just =a bit of an FYI / brag=85
I just got our new Mac mini =server set up. This is fully maxed out on the Apple store - 2.6GHz i7, =16 GB RAM, dual 250GB SSD drives, $1999 US.
Set =up with WebDNA Server 6.2, and the first thing I did was pull out the =old WebDNA speed test:
The previous top =score was held by "Core2Duo E8400 =@3.0ghz, 2GB Ram, 400GB SATA HDD, CentOS 5.3 (Final), Cicada 6.2 Apache =2.2.13"
This mini will be =replacing a 2.5 year old Mac mini server, spec'ed as 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, =4 GB RAM, dual 7200 RPM 500GB disks.
New =mini=Old miniOld =Record Holder
Total =Ticks=151=191=166=
% Improvement=--=26%=10%
In these results, the =first 2 seconds of the test are simply a 2 second delay used to see how many =ticks are in 2 seconds, and has no bearing on the system's performance. =Subtracting out those 2 seconds, the results are much more =dramatic:
=New miniOld miniOld =Record Holder
Test-Only =Ticks=30=79=44
% =Improvement=--=163%=47%
The "Test-Only Ticks" =results subtract out the first 121-122 ticks of the test, which is =simply a 2 second delay used to see how many ticks are in 2 =seconds, and has no bearing on the system's =performance.
I expect the performance =difference will be even greater than this when used with very large =databases, due to the speed of the SSD, and with multiple simultaneous =requests, due to the additional processing =cores.
So far, very pleased. We have some =upcoming projects that will involve millions of database records, and =this should provide enough performance improvement to make that =feasible.
- Brian Fries
---------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed tothe mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/l=ist/talk@webdna.usBug Reporting: support@webdna.us
=--Apple-Mail=_C1CDCCC1-B710-4669-8E10-DFD24CB55C77--
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
--Apple-Mail=_C1CDCCC1-B710-4669-8E10-DFD24CB55C77Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableContent-Type: text/plain;charset=windows-1252Nice, Brian :-)Encouraging.=20On 2013-04-18, at 7:10 PM, Brian Fries wrote:> Just a bit of an FYI / brag=85>=20> I just got our new Mac mini server set up. This is fully maxed out on =the Apple store - 2.6GHz i7, 16 GB RAM, dual 250GB SSD drives, $1999 US.>=20> Set up with WebDNA Server 6.2, and the first thing I did was pull out =the old WebDNA speed test:>=20> http://www.euca.us/webdnatest/show_speed.html>=20> The previous top score was held by "Core2Duo E8400 @3.0ghz, 2GB Ram, =400GB SATA HDD, CentOS 5.3 (Final), Cicada 6.2 Apache 2.2.13">=20> This mini will be replacing a 2.5 year old Mac mini server, spec'ed as =2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, dual 7200 RPM 500GB disks.>=20> New miniOld miniOld =Record Holder> Total Ticks151191166=09> % Improvement--26%10%>=20> In these results, the first 2 seconds of the test are simply a 2 =second delay used to see how many ticks are in 2 seconds, and has no =bearing on the system's performance. Subtracting out those 2 seconds, =the results are much more dramatic:>=20> New miniOld miniOld =Record Holder> Test-Only Ticks307944> % Improvement--163%47%>=20> The "Test-Only Ticks" results subtract out the first 121-122 ticks of =the test, which is simply a 2 second delay used to see how many ticks =are in 2 seconds, and has no bearing on the system's performance.>=20> I expect the performance difference will be even greater than this =when used with very large databases, due to the speed of the SSD, and =with multiple simultaneous requests, due to the additional processing =cores.>=20> So far, very pleased. We have some upcoming projects that will involve =millions of database records, and this should provide enough performance =improvement to make that feasible.>=20> - Brian Fries> --------------------------------------------------------- This message =is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To =unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: =http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: =support@webdna.us--Apple-Mail=_C1CDCCC1-B710-4669-8E10-DFD24CB55C77Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableContent-Type: text/html;charset=windows-1252Nice, =Brian :-)
Encouraging.
On =2013-04-18, at 7:10 PM, Brian Fries wrote:
Just =a bit of an FYI / brag=85
I just got our new Mac mini =server set up. This is fully maxed out on the Apple store - 2.6GHz i7, =16 GB RAM, dual 250GB SSD drives, $1999 US.
Set =up with WebDNA Server 6.2, and the first thing I did was pull out the =old WebDNA speed test:
The previous top =score was held by "Core2Duo E8400 =@3.0ghz, 2GB Ram, 400GB SATA HDD, CentOS 5.3 (Final), Cicada 6.2 Apache =2.2.13"
This mini will be =replacing a 2.5 year old Mac mini server, spec'ed as 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, =4 GB RAM, dual 7200 RPM 500GB disks.
New =mini=Old miniOld =Record Holder
Total =Ticks=151=191=166=
% Improvement=--=26%=10%
In these results, the =first 2 seconds of the test are simply a 2 second delay used to see how many =ticks are in 2 seconds, and has no bearing on the system's performance. =Subtracting out those 2 seconds, the results are much more =dramatic:
=New miniOld miniOld =Record Holder
Test-Only =Ticks=30=79=44
% =Improvement=--=163%=47%
The "Test-Only Ticks" =results subtract out the first 121-122 ticks of the test, which is =simply a 2 second delay used to see how many ticks are in 2 =seconds, and has no bearing on the system's =performance.
I expect the performance =difference will be even greater than this when used with very large =databases, due to the speed of the SSD, and with multiple simultaneous =requests, due to the additional processing =cores.
So far, very pleased. We have some =upcoming projects that will involve millions of database records, and =this should provide enough performance improvement to make that =feasible.
- Brian Fries
---------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed tothe mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/l=ist/talk@webdna.usBug Reporting: support@webdna.us
=--Apple-Mail=_C1CDCCC1-B710-4669-8E10-DFD24CB55C77--
John Buler
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
ConvertChars request (1999)
Separate SSL Server (1997)
[WebDNA] WebDNA 8.6.4 (2020)
NT Setup (1998)
Issues with the default db files ... (2003)
Ampersand (1997)
WebCat2 Append problem (B14Macacgi) (1997)
Bad suffix error (1997)
Kaaaaahhhhhhhnnnnnnn! (1997)
Projects & Contractors (1997)
math on date? (1997)
Almost a there but..bye bye NetCloak (1997)
WC2b15 - [HTMLx]...[/HTMLx] problems (1997)
Guestbook (2000)
Can't use old cart file (was One more try) (1997)
exclusive db lock with webcat-3 ? (2000)
can webcat determine an image's pixel dimensions? (2000)
OT: Free Search Tools (2003)
Calculating multiple shipping... (1997)
[WebDNA] [WSC] WebDNA Development Summit (2014)