Apache/PHP/MySQL Performance

In our first review of the T2000, we took a look at the T2000 as a heavy Apache, MySQL and PHP web server (or SAMP web server) using a pretty complex weather report system. The PHP test script retrieves hourly-stored weather information out of a MySQL database, that can be overviewed by month. An 'opening page' displays all months that are stored in the database, and if you open a 'detail page', the month you have selected is submitted by query string parameters. Additional details about this test application are available if you would like to know more.

The problem with our first test was that with the caching file we are taking MySQL and PHP out of the equation most of the time, and emphasizing TCP/IP handling and Apache too much. As we want to get also an idea of the PHP/MySQL speed of the different CPUs, we decided to test with an uncached version, simulating the worst case of the application.

However, running the uncached version only means that we regenerate the PHP page with each request. We did enable the query cache in MySQL. A good webmaster knows that too many accesses to the database can completely wreck web server performance, thus, it is important to "shield" the database backend from too many concurrent accesses. The mod_deflate module was enabled to make gzip compression happen.

For benchmarking, httperf was used in conjunction with autobench, a Perl script written by Julian T. J. Midgley, designed to run httperf against a server several times, with the number of requests per second increasing with each iteration. The output from the program enables us to see exactly how well the system being tested performs as the workload is gradually increased until it becomes saturated. In each case, the server was benchmarked with 5 requests per connection. The client was connected via a gigabit connection to the server.

To interpret the graphs below precisely, you must know that the X-axis gives you the number of demanded requests and the Y-axis gives you the actual reply rate of the server. The first points all show the same performance for each server, as each server is capable of responding fast enough. Only one CPU with 2 (Opteron, Xeon) or 8 cores (Sun UltraSparc T1) was present in each server.



Intel's new Xeon wipes the floor here with the competition. Up to 75% faster than the 2.4 GHz Opteron, the new Xeon won't have any trouble with a 3 GHz Opteron. We have to investigate this further, but it seems that this is the result of massive 4 MB L2 cache and intrinsically better integer performance of Woodcrest. Additional tuning might push the T1 higher, but we are pretty sure it is not going to be a screamer in this benchmark.

SSL Benchmarks Java Webserving
Comments Locked

91 Comments

View All Comments

  • JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    Running 4 threads of SSL on 8 core Opteron gives you almost exactly the same scores as 4 threads on a 4 core Opteron. The 2.2 GHz DC Opteron runs at almost exactly the same speed as the 3 GHz woodcrest (that is why you can almost not see it), the 2.4 GHz is clearly in the lead.

    Sign/s: the 2.4 GHz Opteron is keeping up.

    Windows tests: see Jason Clark :-). At the end of this week, Jason will present the Windows based ones.
  • hondaman - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    Is gentoo using 64 bit?
  • JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    Yes. Added that to the configuration page. Thx.
  • vortmax - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    Can't keep a company the size of Intel with all it's resources down for too long. They came back and came back hard. I'm sure AMD was expecting this and I'm guessing they have some kind of contingency plan to counter. It might not be this year, but I would expect that in Q1 of 07, they will have some big announcements.

    Competition is a good thing.
  • stmok - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    Yeah, the contingency plan is called K8L. ;-)
  • Questar - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    So much for the fanboys saying the FSB would cripple Woodcrest.
  • DigitalFreak - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    Woodcrest, maybe. It will be interesting to see how the quad processor version does.
  • eRacer - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    A typo in the conclusion...under AMD Opteron disadvantages:

    - DDR2 offers lower latency, less power and less cost (for now)

    should be an advantage
  • vijay333 - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    i think AT is correct - unless i'm mistaken, opterons don't support DDR2, so they don't have the benefits of DDR2 (lower latency etc)
  • eRacer - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    quote:

    i think AT is correct - unless i'm mistaken, opterons don't support DDR2, so they don't have the benefits of DDR2 (lower latency etc)


    Oops, you are probably correct. I was thinking ahead to rev. F Opteron.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now