Are these stress test results typical?

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by Rick, Jan 6, 2004.

  1. Rick

    Rick Guest

    Hello,

    I ran Microsoft's free "Web Application Stress" tool to see how asp.net/c#
    performed against html.
    Are these results typical?

    Network:
    WAS ran on a server with a t3 Internet connection to the test server.
    Test Server:
    Windows 2000 SP 4
    1 GIG AMD CPU
    1 GIG RAM
    IIS 5, no logging

    Test:
    Page1.htm 20 lines of super simple html text, no tables, css etc.
    Page2.aspx same extact text as in page1.htm (no asp controls added), but
    created in VS with code behind cs file that I didn't alter.

    WAS Settings:
    All default except:
    Stress Level (threads) 30 [sockets remained 1 per thread]
    Test Run Time: 5 mins

    Results:

    Page2.aspx
    CPU Averaged 94%

    Number of test clients: 1
    Number of hits: 83283
    Requests per Second: 277.61

    Socket Statistics
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----
    Socket Connects: 83313
    Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 22779.38
    Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 75.93
    Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 93532.59
    Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 311.78

    Page Summary
    Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    Query
    ===============================================
    GET 83283 61.95 61.98 No




    Page1.htm
    CPU Averaged 21%

    Number of test clients: 1
    Number of hits: 95276
    Requests per Second: 317.58

    Socket Statistics
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----
    Socket Connects: 95306
    Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 20662.04
    Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 68.87
    Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 109604.62
    Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 365.35

    Page Summary
    Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    Query
    =================================================
    GET 95276 48.60 48.62 No


    At first blush the results seem to be in order, but asp.net really sucked up
    the CPU for a dummy page. What do you think?

    Rick

    P.S. Thank you, but caching advice won't apply to our needs.








    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
     
    Rick, Jan 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rick

    Rick Guest

    Here's the web.config file:

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
    <configuration>

    <system.web>

    <compilation
    defaultLanguage="c#"
    debug="false"
    />

    <customErrors
    mode="Off"
    />

    <authentication mode="None" />

    <authorization>
    <allow users="*" /> <!-- Allow all users -->
    <!-- <allow users="[comma separated list of users]"
    roles="[comma separated list of roles]"/>
    <deny users="[comma separated list of users]"
    roles="[comma separated list of roles]"/>
    -->
    </authorization>

    <trace
    enabled="false"
    requestLimit="10"
    pageOutput="false"
    traceMode="SortByTime"
    localOnly="true"
    />


    <sessionState
    mode="InProc"
    stateConnectionString="tcpip=127.0.0.1:42424"
    sqlConnectionString="data
    source=127.0.0.1;Trusted_Connection=yes"
    cookieless="false"
    timeout="20"
    />

    <globalization
    requestEncoding="utf-8"
    responseEncoding="utf-8"
    />

    </system.web>

    </configuration>



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
     
    Rick, Jan 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rick,

    Those results sound correct.

    But why would anyone use an .aspx page to deliver static content? Of course
    the .aspx page is going to use the cpu intensively for a moment. It is
    compiling the page whether there is dynamic content or not because the page
    is linked to the application's .dll.

    A real test would be a database pull on an .asp page or j2ee page vs. the
    same datapull and display in a .aspx page.

    If, somewhere in your asp.net application, all you need to do is deliver
    static content you should definitely use a .htm page.

    --
    Sincerely,

    S. Justin Gengo, MCP
    Web Developer / Programmer

    Free code library at:
    www.aboutfortunate.com

    "Out of chaos comes order."
    Nietzche


    "Rick" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello,
    >
    > I ran Microsoft's free "Web Application Stress" tool to see how asp.net/c#
    > performed against html.
    > Are these results typical?
    >
    > Network:
    > WAS ran on a server with a t3 Internet connection to the test server.
    > Test Server:
    > Windows 2000 SP 4
    > 1 GIG AMD CPU
    > 1 GIG RAM
    > IIS 5, no logging
    >
    > Test:
    > Page1.htm 20 lines of super simple html text, no tables, css etc.
    > Page2.aspx same extact text as in page1.htm (no asp controls added), but
    > created in VS with code behind cs file that I didn't alter.
    >
    > WAS Settings:
    > All default except:
    > Stress Level (threads) 30 [sockets remained 1 per thread]
    > Test Run Time: 5 mins
    >
    > Results:
    >
    > Page2.aspx
    > CPU Averaged 94%
    >
    > Number of test clients: 1
    > Number of hits: 83283
    > Requests per Second: 277.61
    >
    > Socket Statistics
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --
    > ----
    > Socket Connects: 83313
    > Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 22779.38
    > Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 75.93
    > Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 93532.59
    > Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 311.78
    >
    > Page Summary
    > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > Query
    > ===============================================
    > GET 83283 61.95 61.98 No
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Page1.htm
    > CPU Averaged 21%
    >
    > Number of test clients: 1
    > Number of hits: 95276
    > Requests per Second: 317.58
    >
    > Socket Statistics
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --
    > ----
    > Socket Connects: 95306
    > Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 20662.04
    > Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 68.87
    > Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 109604.62
    > Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 365.35
    >
    > Page Summary
    > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > Query
    > =================================================
    > GET 95276 48.60 48.62 No
    >
    >
    > At first blush the results seem to be in order, but asp.net really sucked

    up
    > the CPU for a dummy page. What do you think?
    >
    > Rick
    >
    > P.S. Thank you, but caching advice won't apply to our needs.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    > Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
    >
    >
     
    S. Justin Gengo, Jan 6, 2004
    #3
  4. Rick

    Chris Botha Guest

    Change page1.htm to page1.asp and see what happens, or re-do page2.aspx
    to be page2.html, as it seems from your message that it can be an html page.
    One would use asp/aspx only if it must access some resource, like a
    database, etc, and asp/aspx is slower than html.

    "Rick" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello,
    >
    > I ran Microsoft's free "Web Application Stress" tool to see how asp.net/c#
    > performed against html.
    > Are these results typical?
    >
    > Network:
    > WAS ran on a server with a t3 Internet connection to the test server.
    > Test Server:
    > Windows 2000 SP 4
    > 1 GIG AMD CPU
    > 1 GIG RAM
    > IIS 5, no logging
    >
    > Test:
    > Page1.htm 20 lines of super simple html text, no tables, css etc.
    > Page2.aspx same extact text as in page1.htm (no asp controls added), but
    > created in VS with code behind cs file that I didn't alter.
    >
    > WAS Settings:
    > All default except:
    > Stress Level (threads) 30 [sockets remained 1 per thread]
    > Test Run Time: 5 mins
    >
    > Results:
    >
    > Page2.aspx
    > CPU Averaged 94%
    >
    > Number of test clients: 1
    > Number of hits: 83283
    > Requests per Second: 277.61
    >
    > Socket Statistics
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --
    > ----
    > Socket Connects: 83313
    > Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 22779.38
    > Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 75.93
    > Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 93532.59
    > Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 311.78
    >
    > Page Summary
    > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > Query
    > ===============================================
    > GET 83283 61.95 61.98 No
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Page1.htm
    > CPU Averaged 21%
    >
    > Number of test clients: 1
    > Number of hits: 95276
    > Requests per Second: 317.58
    >
    > Socket Statistics
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --
    > ----
    > Socket Connects: 95306
    > Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 20662.04
    > Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 68.87
    > Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 109604.62
    > Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 365.35
    >
    > Page Summary
    > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > Query
    > =================================================
    > GET 95276 48.60 48.62 No
    >
    >
    > At first blush the results seem to be in order, but asp.net really sucked

    up
    > the CPU for a dummy page. What do you think?
    >
    > Rick
    >
    > P.S. Thank you, but caching advice won't apply to our needs.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    > Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
    >
    >
     
    Chris Botha, Jan 6, 2004
    #4
  5. Rick

    Rick Guest

    Justin,

    A "dummy" aspx page is not to meant to delivery static content -- if it was
    I agree with you -- it's to isolate any causes for excessive cpu consumption
    during the load tests. Once we have a base performance figure for a "dumb"
    aspx page, then we can see how any dynamic features we add effect
    performance. Another poster had a clever idea along theses lines, I will be
    running those tests now and posting the results.

    Thanks,

    Rick


    "S. Justin Gengo" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Rick,
    >
    > Those results sound correct.
    >
    > But why would anyone use an .aspx page to deliver static content? Of

    course
    > the .aspx page is going to use the cpu intensively for a moment. It is
    > compiling the page whether there is dynamic content or not because the

    page
    > is linked to the application's .dll.
    >
    > A real test would be a database pull on an .asp page or j2ee page vs. the
    > same datapull and display in a .aspx page.
    >
    > If, somewhere in your asp.net application, all you need to do is deliver
    > static content you should definitely use a .htm page.
    >
    > --
    > Sincerely,
    >
    > S. Justin Gengo, MCP
    > Web Developer / Programmer
    >
    > Free code library at:
    > www.aboutfortunate.com
    >
    > "Out of chaos comes order."
    > Nietzche
    >
    >
    > "Rick" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > I ran Microsoft's free "Web Application Stress" tool to see how

    asp.net/c#
    > > performed against html.
    > > Are these results typical?
    > >
    > > Network:
    > > WAS ran on a server with a t3 Internet connection to the test server.
    > > Test Server:
    > > Windows 2000 SP 4
    > > 1 GIG AMD CPU
    > > 1 GIG RAM
    > > IIS 5, no logging
    > >
    > > Test:
    > > Page1.htm 20 lines of super simple html text, no tables, css etc.
    > > Page2.aspx same extact text as in page1.htm (no asp controls added), but
    > > created in VS with code behind cs file that I didn't alter.
    > >
    > > WAS Settings:
    > > All default except:
    > > Stress Level (threads) 30 [sockets remained 1 per thread]
    > > Test Run Time: 5 mins
    > >
    > > Results:
    > >
    > > Page2.aspx
    > > CPU Averaged 94%
    > >
    > > Number of test clients: 1
    > > Number of hits: 83283
    > > Requests per Second: 277.61
    > >
    > > Socket Statistics

    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > --
    > > ----
    > > Socket Connects: 83313
    > > Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 22779.38
    > > Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 75.93
    > > Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 93532.59
    > > Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 311.78
    > >
    > > Page Summary
    > > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > > Query
    > > ===============================================
    > > GET 83283 61.95 61.98 No
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Page1.htm
    > > CPU Averaged 21%
    > >
    > > Number of test clients: 1
    > > Number of hits: 95276
    > > Requests per Second: 317.58
    > >
    > > Socket Statistics

    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > --
    > > ----
    > > Socket Connects: 95306
    > > Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 20662.04
    > > Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 68.87
    > > Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 109604.62
    > > Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 365.35
    > >
    > > Page Summary
    > > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > > Query
    > > =================================================
    > > GET 95276 48.60 48.62 No
    > >
    > >
    > > At first blush the results seem to be in order, but asp.net really

    sucked
    > up
    > > the CPU for a dummy page. What do you think?
    > >
    > > Rick
    > >
    > > P.S. Thank you, but caching advice won't apply to our needs.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > ---
    > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    > > Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
    > >
    > >

    >
    >



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
     
    Rick, Jan 6, 2004
    #5
  6. Rick

    Rick Guest

    Chris and those interested,

    I renamed Page1.htm to Page1.asp on ran it on the on a Windows 2000 Server,
    1 Gig AMD ~1000 MHz CPU and 1 Gig RAM

    Results:
    CPU Averaged 54% (aspx 90-95%, html 21%)

    Number of hits: 90880
    Requests per Second: 302.94
    Page Summary
    Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    Query
    ================================================
    GET 90880 52.63 52.66 No


    Then I found I overlooked turning off view state so I changed the Page2.aspx
    like so:
    <%@ Page language="c#" Codebehind="Page2.aspx.cs" AutoEventWireup="false"
    Inherits="Page2.Page2" EnableSessionState="False" enableViewState="False"
    debug="False"%>

    Results:
    CPU Averaged 90% (This saved about 5% from the previous aspx page.)

    Number of hits: 83283
    Requests per Second: 277.61
    Page Summary
    Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    Query
    ==================================================
    GET 83283 61.95 61.98 No


    Then I ran Page2.aspx on a Windows 2003 Server, 1 Gig AMD ~1800 MHz CPU and
    500 Megs RAM

    Results
    CPU Averaged 49%

    Number of hits: 89482
    Requests per Second: 297.81 (very slight increase considering the
    cpu was half of the other server)

    Page Summary
    Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    Query
    ================================================
    GET 89482 51.59 51.66 No


    The strong CPU has less load, obviously, but the performance is vitirually
    the same once adjust for more horsepower.

    This leads me to concluded asp.net is a cpu PIG, classic asp is much more
    gentle on the cpu and thus faster. What am I missing, why would asp.net
    with all the bells and whistles turned off consume so much CPU? I thought
    once a page was compiled, it would render the page with very little
    overhead.

    More thoughts are encouraged.

    Rick




    "Chris Botha" <> wrote in message
    news:O$...
    > Change page1.htm to page1.asp and see what happens, or re-do

    page2.aspx
    > to be page2.html, as it seems from your message that it can be an html

    page.
    > One would use asp/aspx only if it must access some resource, like a
    > database, etc, and asp/aspx is slower than html.
    >
    > "Rick" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > I ran Microsoft's free "Web Application Stress" tool to see how

    asp.net/c#
    > > performed against html.
    > > Are these results typical?
    > >
    > > Network:
    > > WAS ran on a server with a t3 Internet connection to the test server.
    > > Test Server:
    > > Windows 2000 SP 4
    > > 1 GIG AMD CPU
    > > 1 GIG RAM
    > > IIS 5, no logging
    > >
    > > Test:
    > > Page1.htm 20 lines of super simple html text, no tables, css etc.
    > > Page2.aspx same extact text as in page1.htm (no asp controls added), but
    > > created in VS with code behind cs file that I didn't alter.
    > >
    > > WAS Settings:
    > > All default except:
    > > Stress Level (threads) 30 [sockets remained 1 per thread]
    > > Test Run Time: 5 mins
    > >
    > > Results:
    > >
    > > Page2.aspx
    > > CPU Averaged 94%
    > >
    > > Number of test clients: 1
    > > Number of hits: 83283
    > > Requests per Second: 277.61
    > >
    > > Socket Statistics

    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > --
    > > ----
    > > Socket Connects: 83313
    > > Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 22779.38
    > > Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 75.93
    > > Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 93532.59
    > > Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 311.78
    > >
    > > Page Summary
    > > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > > Query
    > > ===============================================
    > > GET 83283 61.95 61.98 No
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Page1.htm
    > > CPU Averaged 21%
    > >
    > > Number of test clients: 1
    > > Number of hits: 95276
    > > Requests per Second: 317.58
    > >
    > > Socket Statistics

    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > --
    > > ----
    > > Socket Connects: 95306
    > > Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 20662.04
    > > Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 68.87
    > > Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 109604.62
    > > Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 365.35
    > >
    > > Page Summary
    > > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > > Query
    > > =================================================
    > > GET 95276 48.60 48.62 No
    > >
    > >
    > > At first blush the results seem to be in order, but asp.net really

    sucked
    > up
    > > the CPU for a dummy page. What do you think?
    > >
    > > Rick
    > >
    > > P.S. Thank you, but caching advice won't apply to our needs.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > ---
    > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    > > Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
    > >
    > >

    >
    >



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
     
    Rick, Jan 7, 2004
    #6
  7. Rick

    Chris Botha Guest

    That's interesting. Why don't you add a bit of meat to the pages, let each
    do a simple database query, let the ASP use ADO and the ASPX use ADO.NET.
    I'm pretty sure it should change the picture. When I started using ASPX, I
    was amazed by the speed.

    "Rick" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Chris and those interested,
    >
    > I renamed Page1.htm to Page1.asp on ran it on the on a Windows 2000

    Server,
    > 1 Gig AMD ~1000 MHz CPU and 1 Gig RAM
    >
    > Results:
    > CPU Averaged 54% (aspx 90-95%, html 21%)
    >
    > Number of hits: 90880
    > Requests per Second: 302.94
    > Page Summary
    > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > Query
    > ================================================
    > GET 90880 52.63 52.66 No
    >
    >
    > Then I found I overlooked turning off view state so I changed the

    Page2.aspx
    > like so:
    > <%@ Page language="c#" Codebehind="Page2.aspx.cs" AutoEventWireup="false"
    > Inherits="Page2.Page2" EnableSessionState="False" enableViewState="False"
    > debug="False"%>
    >
    > Results:
    > CPU Averaged 90% (This saved about 5% from the previous aspx page.)
    >
    > Number of hits: 83283
    > Requests per Second: 277.61
    > Page Summary
    > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > Query
    > ==================================================
    > GET 83283 61.95 61.98 No
    >
    >
    > Then I ran Page2.aspx on a Windows 2003 Server, 1 Gig AMD ~1800 MHz CPU

    and
    > 500 Megs RAM
    >
    > Results
    > CPU Averaged 49%
    >
    > Number of hits: 89482
    > Requests per Second: 297.81 (very slight increase considering the
    > cpu was half of the other server)
    >
    > Page Summary
    > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > Query
    > ================================================
    > GET 89482 51.59 51.66 No
    >
    >
    > The strong CPU has less load, obviously, but the performance is vitirually
    > the same once adjust for more horsepower.
    >
    > This leads me to concluded asp.net is a cpu PIG, classic asp is much more
    > gentle on the cpu and thus faster. What am I missing, why would asp.net
    > with all the bells and whistles turned off consume so much CPU? I thought
    > once a page was compiled, it would render the page with very little
    > overhead.
    >
    > More thoughts are encouraged.
    >
    > Rick
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Chris Botha" <> wrote in message
    > news:O$...
    > > Change page1.htm to page1.asp and see what happens, or re-do

    > page2.aspx
    > > to be page2.html, as it seems from your message that it can be an html

    > page.
    > > One would use asp/aspx only if it must access some resource, like a
    > > database, etc, and asp/aspx is slower than html.
    > >
    > > "Rick" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > Hello,
    > > >
    > > > I ran Microsoft's free "Web Application Stress" tool to see how

    > asp.net/c#
    > > > performed against html.
    > > > Are these results typical?
    > > >
    > > > Network:
    > > > WAS ran on a server with a t3 Internet connection to the test server.
    > > > Test Server:
    > > > Windows 2000 SP 4
    > > > 1 GIG AMD CPU
    > > > 1 GIG RAM
    > > > IIS 5, no logging
    > > >
    > > > Test:
    > > > Page1.htm 20 lines of super simple html text, no tables, css etc.
    > > > Page2.aspx same extact text as in page1.htm (no asp controls added),

    but
    > > > created in VS with code behind cs file that I didn't alter.
    > > >
    > > > WAS Settings:
    > > > All default except:
    > > > Stress Level (threads) 30 [sockets remained 1 per thread]
    > > > Test Run Time: 5 mins
    > > >
    > > > Results:
    > > >
    > > > Page2.aspx
    > > > CPU Averaged 94%
    > > >
    > > > Number of test clients: 1
    > > > Number of hits: 83283
    > > > Requests per Second: 277.61
    > > >
    > > > Socket Statistics

    > >

    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > --
    > > > ----
    > > > Socket Connects: 83313
    > > > Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 22779.38
    > > > Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 75.93
    > > > Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 93532.59
    > > > Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 311.78
    > > >
    > > > Page Summary
    > > > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > > > Query
    > > > ===============================================
    > > > GET 83283 61.95 61.98 No
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Page1.htm
    > > > CPU Averaged 21%
    > > >
    > > > Number of test clients: 1
    > > > Number of hits: 95276
    > > > Requests per Second: 317.58
    > > >
    > > > Socket Statistics

    > >

    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > --
    > > > ----
    > > > Socket Connects: 95306
    > > > Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 20662.04
    > > > Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 68.87
    > > > Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 109604.62
    > > > Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 365.35
    > > >
    > > > Page Summary
    > > > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > > > Query
    > > > =================================================
    > > > GET 95276 48.60 48.62 No
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > At first blush the results seem to be in order, but asp.net really

    > sucked
    > > up
    > > > the CPU for a dummy page. What do you think?
    > > >
    > > > Rick
    > > >
    > > > P.S. Thank you, but caching advice won't apply to our needs.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > ---
    > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    > > > Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    > ---
    > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    > Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
    >
    >
     
    Chris Botha, Jan 7, 2004
    #7
  8. Rick

    Rick Guest

    The funny thing all this started when I tested a page with some heavy
    lifting going on and was concerned about the cpu, so I started to look for
    the bottleneck. A couple changes later, not a dint, so I stripped
    everything.

    Turns out, and others have "confirmed" this, the basic aspx page eats up
    most the cpu, once that's out of the way then it can do a lot of heavy
    lifting very quickly and with little additional cpu. In my case, the heavy
    lifting version only consumes an additional +/- 1%. So when PR tells us
    it's really fast, it is, depending on where you start from lol. I was under
    the crazy assumption that the slow painful first compile was in order for
    the following requests to be spit out with very low overhead and faster than
    the wind.

    This has become today's obsession, so I tested it against some of the
    competition, and asp.net is much faster, just not as fast as asp classic. I
    hope this is addressed in asp.net 2.0.

    Rick






    "Chris Botha" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > That's interesting. Why don't you add a bit of meat to the pages, let each
    > do a simple database query, let the ASP use ADO and the ASPX use ADO.NET.
    > I'm pretty sure it should change the picture. When I started using ASPX, I
    > was amazed by the speed.
    >
    > "Rick" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Chris and those interested,
    > >
    > > I renamed Page1.htm to Page1.asp on ran it on the on a Windows 2000

    > Server,
    > > 1 Gig AMD ~1000 MHz CPU and 1 Gig RAM
    > >
    > > Results:
    > > CPU Averaged 54% (aspx 90-95%, html 21%)
    > >
    > > Number of hits: 90880
    > > Requests per Second: 302.94
    > > Page Summary
    > > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > > Query
    > > ================================================
    > > GET 90880 52.63 52.66 No
    > >
    > >
    > > Then I found I overlooked turning off view state so I changed the

    > Page2.aspx
    > > like so:
    > > <%@ Page language="c#" Codebehind="Page2.aspx.cs"

    AutoEventWireup="false"
    > > Inherits="Page2.Page2" EnableSessionState="False"

    enableViewState="False"
    > > debug="False"%>
    > >
    > > Results:
    > > CPU Averaged 90% (This saved about 5% from the previous aspx page.)
    > >
    > > Number of hits: 83283
    > > Requests per Second: 277.61
    > > Page Summary
    > > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > > Query
    > > ==================================================
    > > GET 83283 61.95 61.98 No
    > >
    > >
    > > Then I ran Page2.aspx on a Windows 2003 Server, 1 Gig AMD ~1800 MHz CPU

    > and
    > > 500 Megs RAM
    > >
    > > Results
    > > CPU Averaged 49%
    > >
    > > Number of hits: 89482
    > > Requests per Second: 297.81 (very slight increase considering

    the
    > > cpu was half of the other server)
    > >
    > > Page Summary
    > > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > > Query
    > > ================================================
    > > GET 89482 51.59 51.66 No
    > >
    > >
    > > The strong CPU has less load, obviously, but the performance is

    vitirually
    > > the same once adjust for more horsepower.
    > >
    > > This leads me to concluded asp.net is a cpu PIG, classic asp is much

    more
    > > gentle on the cpu and thus faster. What am I missing, why would asp.net
    > > with all the bells and whistles turned off consume so much CPU? I

    thought
    > > once a page was compiled, it would render the page with very little
    > > overhead.
    > >
    > > More thoughts are encouraged.
    > >
    > > Rick
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Chris Botha" <> wrote in message
    > > news:O$...
    > > > Change page1.htm to page1.asp and see what happens, or re-do

    > > page2.aspx
    > > > to be page2.html, as it seems from your message that it can be an html

    > > page.
    > > > One would use asp/aspx only if it must access some resource, like a
    > > > database, etc, and asp/aspx is slower than html.
    > > >
    > > > "Rick" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > > Hello,
    > > > >
    > > > > I ran Microsoft's free "Web Application Stress" tool to see how

    > > asp.net/c#
    > > > > performed against html.
    > > > > Are these results typical?
    > > > >
    > > > > Network:
    > > > > WAS ran on a server with a t3 Internet connection to the test

    server.
    > > > > Test Server:
    > > > > Windows 2000 SP 4
    > > > > 1 GIG AMD CPU
    > > > > 1 GIG RAM
    > > > > IIS 5, no logging
    > > > >
    > > > > Test:
    > > > > Page1.htm 20 lines of super simple html text, no tables, css etc.
    > > > > Page2.aspx same extact text as in page1.htm (no asp controls added),

    > but
    > > > > created in VS with code behind cs file that I didn't alter.
    > > > >
    > > > > WAS Settings:
    > > > > All default except:
    > > > > Stress Level (threads) 30 [sockets remained 1 per thread]
    > > > > Test Run Time: 5 mins
    > > > >
    > > > > Results:
    > > > >
    > > > > Page2.aspx
    > > > > CPU Averaged 94%
    > > > >
    > > > > Number of test clients: 1
    > > > > Number of hits: 83283
    > > > > Requests per Second: 277.61
    > > > >
    > > > > Socket Statistics
    > > >

    > >

    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > > --
    > > > > ----
    > > > > Socket Connects: 83313
    > > > > Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 22779.38
    > > > > Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 75.93
    > > > > Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 93532.59
    > > > > Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 311.78
    > > > >
    > > > > Page Summary
    > > > > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > > > > Query
    > > > > ===============================================
    > > > > GET 83283 61.95 61.98 No
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Page1.htm
    > > > > CPU Averaged 21%
    > > > >
    > > > > Number of test clients: 1
    > > > > Number of hits: 95276
    > > > > Requests per Second: 317.58
    > > > >
    > > > > Socket Statistics
    > > >

    > >

    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > > --
    > > > > ----
    > > > > Socket Connects: 95306
    > > > > Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 20662.04
    > > > > Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 68.87
    > > > > Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 109604.62
    > > > > Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 365.35
    > > > >
    > > > > Page Summary
    > > > > Page Hits TTFB Avg TTLB Avg Auth
    > > > > Query
    > > > > =================================================
    > > > > GET 95276 48.60 48.62 No
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > At first blush the results seem to be in order, but asp.net really

    > > sucked
    > > > up
    > > > > the CPU for a dummy page. What do you think?
    > > > >
    > > > > Rick
    > > > >
    > > > > P.S. Thank you, but caching advice won't apply to our needs.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > ---
    > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    > > > > Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >
    > > ---
    > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    > > Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
    > >
    > >

    >
    >



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004
     
    Rick, Jan 7, 2004
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. msnews.microsoft.com

    stress test question

    msnews.microsoft.com, Sep 14, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    369
    Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]
    Sep 15, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?R3VzdGF2byBCYXJib3Nh?=

    ASP.NET Stress Test ACT (Socket Errors)

    =?Utf-8?B?R3VzdGF2byBCYXJib3Nh?=, Jan 26, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,731
    bruce barker
    Jan 26, 2005
  3. =?Utf-8?B?TWFyZHk=?=

    Need a stress test tool

    =?Utf-8?B?TWFyZHk=?=, Dec 10, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,124
    enricoe
    Dec 11, 2005
  4. Bart Nessux

    HDD Stress Test with Python

    Bart Nessux, Jan 22, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    527
    Skip Montanaro
    Jan 23, 2004
  5. A.M-SG
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    446
    Steven Cheng[MSFT]
    Oct 6, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page