An INDEPENDENT TEST
A customer's quick test showed ESAWEB to be
28 times faster
loading a slightly complex page on a recent Amdahl processor.
Only one significant digit is needed here!
Eweb: 1.68 CPU seconds
ESAWEB: 0.06 CPU seconds
Another INDEPENDENT TEST:
I'm running a version of my Java ticker with nil program logic
except to generate a time stamp: eg: result =
translate(diag(8,'QUERY TIME'),' ','15'x) 'OUTPUT' result
On ESAWEB - 10 hits costs 0.03 or 0.04 CPU seconds TTIME (as
reported by QUERY TIME)
On EnterpriseWeb - 10 hits costs 0.80 CPU seconds
Even using the higher time for ESAWEB for round-up. that's a
And the internal measurements:
I ran the benchmarks Saturday morning. I let about 5 minutes
lapse between each run to allow the system to quiet down a bit.
I ran three different benchmarks from SFS then from minidisk for
a total of six benchmarks. The first type was retrieval of HTML
requiring EBCDIC to ASCII translation and appending CR/LF to
each output record. The second type was of a GIF file requiring
no server massaging of data. The third type was the execution of
a CGI that used a PIPE state to read the test HTML file and
Each test generated 8304 bytes of header and 8196 bytes of
output data per request.
Results according to benchmark program:
Time Duration Filetype Storage hits
11:54 240.008 HTML Mdisk 1849 (first run of day)
12:04 240.118 GIF Mdisk 1753
12:17 240.047 GIF SFS 1693
12:26 240.387 HTML SFS 1529
12:52 240.042 CGI SFS 1383
13:03 240.017 CGI Mdisk 1363
I would be interested in seeing how many CGI cached hits there
are relative to CGIs invoked. I had a couple of runs where the
CGI failed and had to be modified.
If you can't measure it, I'm just NOT
8, 1996-1999 - Velocity Software, Inc.