Timing tests on TWikiFns branch

This is on an unloaded Debian testing box, using svn and a basically virginal install.

As can be seen, there is no difference in performance, which is what I expected.

-- MeredithLesly - 20 Jul 2006

Looks good. Is that ab?

-- CrawfordCurrie - 21 Jul 2006

yes, sorry, should have said I was using ab. This would appear to be the right test, as nothing else should be affecting the times that I can think of.

-- MeredithLesly - 21 Jul 2006

next q you would have liked to answer before: ab on loopback?

-- SvenDowideit - 21 Jul 2006

Erm, not sure, but both done the same way.

-- MeredithLesly - 21 Jul 2006

meanin... ab was executed in the same machine where TWiki was installed?

-- RafaelAlvarez - 24 Jul 2006

TWikiFns tested by Kenneth Lavrsen

Tested on a Centos 4.3. Pentium D 3.2 GHz with 2 GB RAM and a 250 GB SATA HD

Ethereal measurements

ab -n 10 localhost FAQ

• TWiki 4.0.4 764 ms
• TWikiFns 745 ms

ab -n 10 external FAQ

• TWiki 4.0.4 763 ms
• TWikiFns 745 ms

Conclusions.

• TWikiFns seems to at least not slow down TWiki.
• On a naked simple topic TWiki 4.0.4 is faster.
• On a TWiki with a web with 750 topics and a more complex topic TWikiFns is as fast as Twiki4.0.4
• On a TWiki with the 750 topic web and adding 565 users TWikiFns seems to be a little faster.
• When you measure with ab you get the same results as with Ethereal Page load starts.
• When you measure with ab on loopback you get the same results as from a remote machine on same 100 Mbit network.
• A small extra test of TOC shows that this features cost but not as much as one could have expected for a long document with many sections.
• TWikiFns seems ready to go into 4.1 seen from a speed perspective.

Note that these tests are not run on the same machine as earlier performance data I have published. This new server is much faster.

-- KennethLavrsen - 25 Jul 2006

Thank you, Kenneth! The TOC results are odd, given that it can't be implemented as a TWikiFn and isn't. (It would have to be a standard plugin instead, and perhaps should be).

-- MeredithLesly - 08 Aug 2006