/ Zope / Apsis / Pound Mailing List / Archive / 2006 / 2006-02 / Pound 2.0.1 on VMware ESX?

[ << ] [ >> ]

[ Port number in Host header / "Jacky C.K ... ] [ Session Management / "Nima Mazloumi" ... ]

Pound 2.0.1 on VMware ESX?
Jeffrey Brown <jbrown(at)camsys.com>
2006-02-17 16:29:26 [ FULL ]
Hi,
 
I was wondering if anyone has used pound running under an OS hosted by VMware
ESX server.
 
I am running pound 2.0.1 in SuSE Enterprise Server 9 on VMWare ESX 2.5.2 and am
noticing rather slow response times to certain requests.
 
For example, I have a default .htm page that loads when a user first attempts
to access web-based email.  This htm is very small and simple, but I have
noticed that it takes about 10 secs to load when first accessed through pound. 
I do not see anything strange in the pound log files.  When I goto this site,
the SSL certificate warning window pops up immediately, but after I click
"accept" I will wait upwards of 10 seconds for the page to load.  I ran an HTTP
sniffer and see that i do not get a response from pound after the initial
request for about 10 seconds.
 
The server in question is currently in testing phase and there is only 1
simultaneous connection (me).  The response time for the SuSE OS seems fine, as
does the response of the other virtual machines hosted on this ESX server.
 
I have read of other applications that run abysmally under VMware for whatever
reason, so I am wondering if this may be the case with pound?
 
I have not yet installed and tested SuSE/pound on a physical server, but I have
to imagine that this is not how pound is supposed to work, and it would be much
faster
 
Thanks
 
--jeff
Attachments:  
text.html text/html 1682 Bytes

Re: [Pound Mailing List] Pound 2.0.1 on VMware ESX?
Kenneth Wong <ken(at)exoweb.net>
2006-02-17 16:49:29 [ FULL ]
On 17 Feb 2006, at 11:29 PM, Jeffrey Brown wrote:[...]

We have run pound under VMware before, and had much better  
performance than that. It was version 1.8.2 though, not the 2.0.1  
series. Under VMware ESX, pound handled 10-20 requests per second  
just fine. However, we ended up abandoning VMware for our production  
systems due to problems getting other systems to run well on VMware  
virtual machines.

Ken

RE: [Pound Mailing List] Pound 2.0.1 on VMware ESX?
"Kenneth Lin" <klin(at)rezlink.com>
2006-02-17 18:09:03 [ FULL ]
I am currently running pound 1.9 on VMWare workstation 5.0 (Fedora Core 3 w/
256MB RAM on a Pentium 4 2.8GHz HT) with SSL (self-signed certificate) in a
test environment and I don't have the same poor response times as you.  My
response time appears to be under one second.

- Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Brown [mailto:jbrown(at)camsys.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 10:29 AM
To: pound(at)apsis.ch
Subject: [Pound Mailing List] Pound 2.0.1 on VMware ESX?

Hi,
 
I was wondering if anyone has used pound running under an OS hosted by
VMware ESX server.
 
I am running pound 2.0.1 in SuSE Enterprise Server 9 on VMWare ESX 2.5.2 and
am noticing rather slow response times to certain requests.
 
For example, I have a default .htm page that loads when a user first
attempts to access web-based email.  This htm is very small and simple, but
I have noticed that it takes about 10 secs to load when first accessed
through pound.  I do not see anything strange in the pound log files.  When
I goto this site, the SSL certificate warning window pops up immediately,
but after I click "accept" I will wait upwards of 10 seconds for the page to
load.  I ran an HTTP sniffer and see that i do not get a response from pound
after the initial request for about 10 seconds.
 
The server in question is currently in testing phase and there is only 1
simultaneous connection (me).  The response time for the SuSE OS seems fine,
as does the response of the other virtual machines hosted on this ESX
server.
 
I have read of other applications that run abysmally under VMware for
whatever reason, so I am wondering if this may be the case with pound?
 
I have not yet installed and tested SuSE/pound on a physical server, but I
have to imagine that this is not how pound is supposed to work, and it would
be much faster
 
Thanks
 
--jeff
[...]

MailBoxer