Re: response time
senthil <senthild-dD4oNHSSz/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.web-polygraph.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Thanx for the response alex. The constant value was smaller than the working set size according to polymix-4 default calculations based on request rate,fillable ratio,host count,etc. There wasnt any other change between the two tests other than this. regards, Senthil Alex Rousskov wrote: >On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, senthil wrote: > >>1.I tried changing the working_set_cap to a constant value. The hits >>time acheived was very high about 15 seconds. >> >>I tried again with the polymix configuration for working_set_cap. >>But now the time for a hit was good about 1 second. Any specific >>reasons?? >> > >There can be many reasons. Is your constant value larger or smaller >than PolyMix-4 value for the request rate you are using? Smaller >working set sizes are easier for the cache to handle. Is it possible >that you also changed something other than working_set_cap between the >two tests? > >>2.And also I have set the ProxyCacheSize to be 500MB only such that >>the Fill phase will not extend for a long time.Does this have any >>impact on response time and hit ratio?? >> > >Not properly filling the cache often has a significant effect on the >quality/reliability of all measurements, including response time and >measured hit ratio. Many caches perform much better when they are not >filled. In real world, the cache will be filled after some initial >warmup time; we want to test under realistic conditions and fill the >cache (twice). > >>3.If I need to have a higher hit ratio i need to change the >>recurrence value.am i right?? >> > >Yes, increasing recurrence ratio will increase _offered_ hit ratio. >Increasing cachability ratio will have the same effect. If you want to >increase _measured_ hit ratio, you need to find out why it is lower >than you want and go from there. > >HTH, > >Alex. >