3

On my local test system, 1.9.1 performed ok in the ab benchmark:

Requests per second:    2.42 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request:       2065.882 [ms] (mean)
Time per request:       413.176 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate:          60.29 [Kbytes/sec] received

After upgrading to 1.9.2, results are significantly worse:

Requests per second:    1.33 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request:       3769.256 [ms] (mean)
Time per request:       753.851 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate:          33.14 [Kbytes/sec] received

No errors are reported in the log. Is this normal? 1.9.2 update were supposed to improve the performance.

Or is performance benefit visible only when cache is enabled? (I have it disabled on a test system)

closed as unclear what you're asking by Marius Jul 11 '15 at 9:26

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • To be honest, your stats are a mile off anyway. You should be seeing around 30 requests/second per CPU core. Given yours are a magnitude out, a difference of 1 RPS isn't particularly telling of an issue. – Ben Lessani - Sonassi Jul 11 '15 at 3:26
  • your both results are too low because of Time per request: 2065.882 [ms] (mean) and Transfer rate: 60.29 [Kbytes/sec] received average magento install will show 10x times faster, i guess you have something else wrong, not only magento.... – user2857 Jul 11 '15 at 8:45
  • Turns out my local-desktop system had some period of degraded performance. After uploading to shared hosting, enabling compilation and cache, I get: Requests per second: 4.97 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 603.456 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 201.152 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 121.99 [Kbytes/sec] received which is slightly better than drupal 6 on the same hosting. I guess after enabling some full page cache module, it would be pretty acceptable. – mati Jul 11 '15 at 9:10