On 20/8/2010 5:52 μμ, Anthony Minessale wrote:
Yet another load test thread.........................
This is why we don't like them.
Too bad you missed my presentation at cluecon.....
Do you hear yourself btw? Quibbling about completely free software *only* doing 200cps in your fake test? I don't know if I missed any message in this thread, but why do you say that the tester did a fake test?
200cps is 4 times the industry standard FYI and if you were really doing 200cps in real life you would be so rich at our expense that you could afford more boxes.
you clearly ignored all of our repeated recommendations. Use the following or you are on your own.......
This OS Centos 5.x x86_64
If someone is on his own for any other OS than Centos 5.x x86_64 then why is FS offered for so many different platforms? It's only natural for people to want to test it on their favorite platform... Perhaps, as you recommend, Centos 5.x x86_64 gives the best results over all other platforms, but last time I checked, a user is still allowed to ask performance related questions for his favorite platform in this mailing list, right? Woody's post was not expressing any negative opinion about FS's performance. He didn't comment on whether 200cps was too little or too much. He just wrote that the CPU usage increased in an unexpected manner and wonders how/if he can solve this. He wrote that he was doing a load test scenario, he didn't write that he was making money at 200cps "at your expense". And he wrote all this in a manner which was neither insulting nor abusive. The poster just wanted to learn something, see if others have gotten better results with other setups. He was trying to make a valid discussion to solve a problem, and other users were actually replying to him. This is what mailing lists are for, right? I really don't understand why red flags have to be raised every time the word "performance" is mentioned in this mailing list. -- Best regards, Vlasis Hatzistavrou.