The Web Application Server Test Environment

With a web application server in place, we needed an application to put under load. We used FuseTalk Enterprise (http://www.fusetalk.com) as our web application as it’s written for ColdFusion MX and is based on the component architecture that most enterprise level applications consist of.

To put FuseTalk under load, we used WAS (Web Application Stress Tool), a free tool released by Microsoft that can record a user’s interaction with a web application and play it back as fast or as slow as required. We used a 200-user load and didn’t record any delay between requests. ColdFusion was set up to process 20 simultaneous threads, a number derived from CPU load. WAS was also set to deliver a maximum of 20 threads to ColdFusion at a time. The main goal was to simulate heavy load on the server in order to bring out differences between the platforms compared.

Once the application was under load, we recorded how long the hardware took to process a page from when the application server starts processing the template to when it hands it off to the client. Some web tests record from when the client requests the page to when the client receives the data. We think that method is flawed when testing how hardware impacts the performance of an Application server. When testing web application server performance as it relates to hardware, you want to remove as many bottlenecks and variables as possible. If you measure how long it took to deliver the data to the client, you are relying on consistent network performance. Network performance can be a variable based on data collision and many other factors.

The Evolution of the Web Server The Database Server Bottleneck
Comments Locked

43 Comments

View All Comments

  • Pandaren - Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - link

    cramitpal, speaking as an advocate of the k8 architecture, I have to say that you are acting like an asshat. cut the holy jihad crap and jerry falwell flaming - frankly you sound like a Steve Jobs worshiper or a Linux-happy script kiddie.

    k8 is a nice architecture for servers. it has been clear to me for some time that intel designed netburst for multimedia applications, and this emphasis has hurt netburst Xeons ever since the days of the Willamette (anyone remember the Willamette based Xeons getting matched or beaten by Pentium III based Xeons?)
  • PaperclipGod - Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - link

    I really enjoyed this article. Very well written. Looking forward to the Itanium 2 comparison.
  • CRAMITPAL - Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - link

    What a humbling experience for Intel... Results mirror other website tests of the latest and greatest Xeon w/L3 cache. AMD just HAMMERS Intel's Xeon into the ground.

    You would think Intel would be anxious to provide a 2P Itanic for comparison, wouldn't you??? Do you think Intel is afraid enterprise will realize that Opteron can provide Itanic 64-bit performance, and superior 32-bit performance for tens of thousands less??? The clowns in Satan Clara must STILL think the World is full of sheep! This review should make the Intel fanboys go POSTAL again.

    SOS same dumbass Intel fanboys. Maybe these confused fanboys are actually Intel SpinMeisters looking to keep their jobs as Intel's sales and market share diminish???

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now