<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: WordPress Cache Plugin Benchmarks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/</link>
	<description>This is my blog, there are many others like it but this one is mine.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:05:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: 性能优化插件&#8211;坑爹的W3 Total Cache &#124; 风水的英文网赚和黑帽SEO博客</title>
		<link>http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-1489</link>
		<dc:creator>性能优化插件&#8211;坑爹的W3 Total Cache &#124; 风水的英文网赚和黑帽SEO博客</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 01:22:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cd34.com/blog/?p=900#comment-1489</guid>
		<description>[...] not W3 Total Cache (评论闪闪发光,很多技术细节) WordPress load test part 2 - amendment WordPress Cache Plugin Benchmarks W3 Total Cache versus WP Super [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] not W3 Total Cache (评论闪闪发光,很多技术细节) WordPress load test part 2 &#8211; amendment WordPress Cache Plugin Benchmarks W3 Total Cache versus WP Super [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WordPress 缓存插件性能对比 &#187; 域名宝盒 &#8211; DNCase.com</title>
		<link>http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-1488</link>
		<dc:creator>WordPress 缓存插件性能对比 &#187; 域名宝盒 &#8211; DNCase.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 08:40:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cd34.com/blog/?p=900#comment-1488</guid>
		<description>[...] 原文：《WordPress Cache Plugin Benchmarks》 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 原文：《WordPress Cache Plugin Benchmarks》 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: W3 Total Cache or WP Super Cache? - Admins Goodies</title>
		<link>http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-1481</link>
		<dc:creator>W3 Total Cache or WP Super Cache? - Admins Goodies</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Aug 2011 18:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cd34.com/blog/?p=900#comment-1481</guid>
		<description>[...] http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a href="http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/" rel="nofollow">http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cd34</title>
		<link>http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-1476</link>
		<dc:creator>cd34</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Aug 2011 02:10:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cd34.com/blog/?p=900#comment-1476</guid>
		<description>As the benchmarks here are over a year and a half old, I would not be surprised that you couldn&#039;t get numbers like that. In brief testing even with Varnish 3.0, we&#039;ve got machines pushing 40k rps and Kristian Lyngstol has benchmarked Varnish at 275k rps (http://kristianlyng.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/275k-req/). There are also considerable performance scheduling changes in 2.6.39 and network improvements in 2.6.37 that would have considerable impact. Also, I don&#039;t believe the shm file was in ram on these tests but, I&#039;m sure I used malloc. libc6 has also received considerable improvement with malloc.

W3TC is a page cache which uses obstart() and grabs the entire page, writes it to disk or memcached and then outputs it. The header rotator outputs html which is inserted in the page. When you&#039;re logged in, Varnish wouldn&#039;t actually cache the index page, allowing the img src which rotates the header to be generated on each pageload. 

W3TC&#039;s config options are very confusing and without testing and retesting, it is very difficult to find the best configuration. WP Super Cache&#039;s out of the box setup is really much better than W3TC&#039;s. With enough time, you could find the magic combination of settings to be faster than WP Super Cache. There are other benefits to W3TC that can be duplicated with other plugins, but, if you wanted everything in one place, W3TC contains a number of useful plugins all in one place.

The other thing you need to consider with your benchmark is that Linode uses virtio on the interface and benchmarking on the machine without actually using the network is going to allow you to have considerably higher numbers than if you&#039;re actually moving traffic across the network. You can tell W3TC to not cache for logged in users which more closely replicates how Varnish is handling things. Also, I would suspect that on non-logged in users, the images wouldn&#039;t be rotating until the cache time expired or the page was purged from the cache on both W3TC and Varnish - and, as your latest comment suggests, WP Super Cache.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As the benchmarks here are over a year and a half old, I would not be surprised that you couldn&#8217;t get numbers like that. In brief testing even with Varnish 3.0, we&#8217;ve got machines pushing 40k rps and Kristian Lyngstol has benchmarked Varnish at 275k rps (<a href="http://kristianlyng.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/275k-req/" rel="nofollow">http://kristianlyng.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/275k-req/</a>). There are also considerable performance scheduling changes in 2.6.39 and network improvements in 2.6.37 that would have considerable impact. Also, I don&#8217;t believe the shm file was in ram on these tests but, I&#8217;m sure I used malloc. libc6 has also received considerable improvement with malloc.</p>
<p>W3TC is a page cache which uses obstart() and grabs the entire page, writes it to disk or memcached and then outputs it. The header rotator outputs html which is inserted in the page. When you&#8217;re logged in, Varnish wouldn&#8217;t actually cache the index page, allowing the img src which rotates the header to be generated on each pageload. </p>
<p>W3TC&#8217;s config options are very confusing and without testing and retesting, it is very difficult to find the best configuration. WP Super Cache&#8217;s out of the box setup is really much better than W3TC&#8217;s. With enough time, you could find the magic combination of settings to be faster than WP Super Cache. There are other benefits to W3TC that can be duplicated with other plugins, but, if you wanted everything in one place, W3TC contains a number of useful plugins all in one place.</p>
<p>The other thing you need to consider with your benchmark is that Linode uses virtio on the interface and benchmarking on the machine without actually using the network is going to allow you to have considerably higher numbers than if you&#8217;re actually moving traffic across the network. You can tell W3TC to not cache for logged in users which more closely replicates how Varnish is handling things. Also, I would suspect that on non-logged in users, the images wouldn&#8217;t be rotating until the cache time expired or the page was purged from the cache on both W3TC and Varnish &#8211; and, as your latest comment suggests, WP Super Cache.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: todsul</title>
		<link>http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-1475</link>
		<dc:creator>todsul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 21:34:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cd34.com/blog/?p=900#comment-1475</guid>
		<description>Just tested - Nginx + WP Super Cache

Doubled the performance of W3TC and Varnish with 10,602 requests/s.
The load for non cached pages feels noticeably quicker.

This is all on the smallest Linode VPS.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just tested &#8211; Nginx + WP Super Cache</p>
<p>Doubled the performance of W3TC and Varnish with 10,602 requests/s.<br />
The load for non cached pages feels noticeably quicker.</p>
<p>This is all on the smallest Linode VPS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: todsul</title>
		<link>http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-1474</link>
		<dc:creator>todsul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 20:49:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cd34.com/blog/?p=900#comment-1474</guid>
		<description>Hey Chris,

I&#039;ve just tested the following on a default Wordpress 3 install:
- bare bones Nginx
- Nginx + W3TC (page cache and minify using disk enhanced)
- Nginx + Varnish (removed all cookies) + WP Varnish plugin

All of these have APC opcode cache enabled.

The bottom 2 configs are producing very similar results, but W3TC is more stable. My ab test for Varnish hangs on the first try and also slows down after I repeat the test many times. I&#039;ve checked memory and there&#039;s plenty free.

Also, in terms of user experience, there&#039;s a big banner image on the default WordPress theme that rotates randomly. W3TC caches that page and the same banner image shows. Varnish is letting the home page image reload even though I&#039;ve removed all cookies in the VCL. I wonder if it&#039;s to do with browser cache settings (will investigate). 

I saw a comment from Frederick Townes somewhere that he&#039;s lost interest in Varnish. I wonder if that&#039;s based on his own tests.

As for my results:
- bare bones Nginx = 57 req/s
- Nginx + W3TC = 5180 req/s
- Nginx + Varnish = 5124 req/s

I wanted to have a nice clean Nginx + Varnish solution (incl Plugin), maybe with a minify plugin, but that&#039;s it. But the Varnish results aren&#039;t especially impressive for the additionally complexity it adds.

Any thoughts on anything I&#039;m missing regarding Varnish? My configs are really bare bones. No funny business.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Chris,</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve just tested the following on a default WordPress 3 install:<br />
- bare bones Nginx<br />
- Nginx + W3TC (page cache and minify using disk enhanced)<br />
- Nginx + Varnish (removed all cookies) + WP Varnish plugin</p>
<p>All of these have APC opcode cache enabled.</p>
<p>The bottom 2 configs are producing very similar results, but W3TC is more stable. My ab test for Varnish hangs on the first try and also slows down after I repeat the test many times. I&#8217;ve checked memory and there&#8217;s plenty free.</p>
<p>Also, in terms of user experience, there&#8217;s a big banner image on the default WordPress theme that rotates randomly. W3TC caches that page and the same banner image shows. Varnish is letting the home page image reload even though I&#8217;ve removed all cookies in the VCL. I wonder if it&#8217;s to do with browser cache settings (will investigate). </p>
<p>I saw a comment from Frederick Townes somewhere that he&#8217;s lost interest in Varnish. I wonder if that&#8217;s based on his own tests.</p>
<p>As for my results:<br />
- bare bones Nginx = 57 req/s<br />
- Nginx + W3TC = 5180 req/s<br />
- Nginx + Varnish = 5124 req/s</p>
<p>I wanted to have a nice clean Nginx + Varnish solution (incl Plugin), maybe with a minify plugin, but that&#8217;s it. But the Varnish results aren&#8217;t especially impressive for the additionally complexity it adds.</p>
<p>Any thoughts on anything I&#8217;m missing regarding Varnish? My configs are really bare bones. No funny business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Usando Varnish como proxy [WordPress + Apache]</title>
		<link>http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-1473</link>
		<dc:creator>Usando Varnish como proxy [WordPress + Apache]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:28:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cd34.com/blog/?p=900#comment-1473</guid>
		<description>[...] algunos posts que me fueron útiles, ya que contienen instrucciones sencillas:Blog de Daniel MesserArtículo en CD34.comHow-to ForgeEuperia blogA posteriori: Comparando el rendimientoEs muy importante medir el efecto que [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] algunos posts que me fueron útiles, ya que contienen instrucciones sencillas:Blog de Daniel MesserArtículo en CD34.comHow-to ForgeEuperia blogA posteriori: Comparando el rendimientoEs muy importante medir el efecto que [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Плагин для кэширования Wordpress или адронный коллайдер для блога &#124; seozip</title>
		<link>http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-1456</link>
		<dc:creator>Плагин для кэширования Wordpress или адронный коллайдер для блога &#124; seozip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:26:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cd34.com/blog/?p=900#comment-1456</guid>
		<description>[...] - Для выбора рекомендую ознакомится с бэнчмаркоми плагинов кэширования [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8211; Для выбора рекомендую ознакомится с бэнчмаркоми плагинов кэширования [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ivete Tecedor Creative &#187; Wordpress Caching Benchmarks</title>
		<link>http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-1451</link>
		<dc:creator>Ivete Tecedor Creative &#187; Wordpress Caching Benchmarks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:11:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cd34.com/blog/?p=900#comment-1451</guid>
		<description>[...] just came across an impressive post benchmarking the performance of various WordPress caching plugins and had to share. The post was written over a year ago but it&#8217;s so thorough and useful that [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] just came across an impressive post benchmarking the performance of various WordPress caching plugins and had to share. The post was written over a year ago but it&#8217;s so thorough and useful that [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Short-term Todo List/Plans</title>
		<link>http://cd34.com/blog/scalability/wordpress-cache-plugin-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-1444</link>
		<dc:creator>Short-term Todo List/Plans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2011 18:50:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cd34.com/blog/?p=900#comment-1444</guid>
		<description>[...] WP-Varnish (Can handle a lot more requests than W3 Total Cache, and I feel like getting my geek on and trying it [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] WP-Varnish (Can handle a lot more requests than W3 Total Cache, and I feel like getting my geek on and trying it [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

