[Catalyst] Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8

[Fayland Lam]

Toby Corkindale wrote:
> (Apologies for top-posting.. have momentarily lost the option to change quoting styles it seems..)
> 
> Fayland, I was looking at the benchmarks that you linked, and was just wondering which version of Perl you're running against?
> 
> (CentOS 5 was one of the operating systems that came with the badly-patched Perl with the slow bless performance..
> although I'm sure it's been patched by now?
> ie. http://blog.vipul.net/2008/08/24/redhat-perl-what-a-tragedy/
> )


Thanks for your update. but it doesn't help on the benchmark since they 
are run on the same condition. so 5.7 is really better than 5.8 under siege.

Thanks.


> 
> Cheers,
> Toby
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fayland Lam <fayland at gmail.com>
> To: catalyst at lists.scsys.co.uk
> Sent: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:56:36 +1000 (EST)
> Subject: [Catalyst] Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
> 
> I'm wondering if someone here did a benchmark between Catalyst 5.7 and 5.8
> 
> here is the result from our server: http://scsys.co.uk:8001/34323
> 
> the background is
> Catalyst 5.7011 VS Catalyst 5.80013
> CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad  CPU   Q8200  @ 2.33GHz
> RAM: 4G
> OS: Centos5
> 
> from the top, each httpd takes 20M more RAM in 5.8 compared with 5.7
> 
> 5.7
>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
> 22979 apache    16   0  167m 142m 4248 S 17.0  3.5   0:06.07 httpd
> 
> 5.8
>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
> 24813 apache    15   0  190m 165m 4000 S 15.6  4.1   0:02.56 httpd
> 
> 
> in this case, I really can't let my boss agree me to upgrade the Catalyst.
> 
> is it normal? any thoughts?
> 
> Thanks.