Are these stress test results typical?

[Rick]

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]

Here's the web.config file:

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

<system.web>

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

<customErrors
mode="Off"
/>

<authenticati on mode="None" />

<authorizatio n>
<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="1 0"
pageOutput="fal se"
traceMode="Sort ByTime"
localOnly="true "
/>
<sessionState
mode="InProc"
stateConnection String="tcpip=1 27.0.0.1:42424"
sqlConnectionSt ring="data
source=127.0.0. 1;Trusted_Conne ction=yes"
cookieless="fal se"
timeout="20"
/>

<globalizatio n
requestEncoding ="utf-8"
responseEncodin g="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

[S. Justin Gengo]

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" <no****@nospam. com> wrote in message
news:uX******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...

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]

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" <no****@nospam. com> wrote in message
news:uX******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...

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