6 ms·
Why not 'ab' which you probably have installed already?
by s3graham 19y ago
Why not 'ab' which you probably have installed already?
- jws 19y agoLooks like 'ab' is much nicer than back in the day. But 'ab' only manages a load of 36 tps and is unable to saturate my web server. (identical machines, php+sqlite3 hairy web page) 'http_load' has the same problem. 'openload' can saturate the web server at 135 tps or so. 'ab' does not present a significant load on its host, so I'm not sure why it can't drive the web server to saturation, but there it is.
- bayareaguy 19y agoAre you using the same number of clients? From the openload website: Number of simultanous clients to simulate. This is optional and defaults to 5. I believe ab defaults to 1 client.
- jsrfded 19y agotry ab -c 1000 -n 100000 <url> that will give you 1000 concurrent connections, 100k total connections. good luck.
- jws 19y agoI was running both of them at 20 clients. More than enough to start pushing the milliseconds/page up.