<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">

  <channel>
	<title>LightPress</title>
	<link>http://lightpress.org</link>
	<description>A fast, template-based frontend for WordPress</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:06:44 GMT</pubDate>
	<generator>http://blogo.it/frontend/</generator>
    
	
    <item>
      <title>Poor Man's Benchmark</title>
      <link>http://lightpress.org/post/poor-mans-benchmark</link>
      <guid>http://lightpress.org/post/poor-mans-benchmark</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:12:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Just did a series of poor man's benchmarks against beta3, using Apache Benchmark with no concurrent requests (ab -n 100):</p>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1">

<tr>
<td>
<p>vanilla WP 1.5.1</p>
</td>
<td align="right">
<p>3.90 req/s</p>
</td>

</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>LP 1.1.0beta3</p>
</td>
<td align="right">
<p>11.90 req/s</p>
</td>

</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>LP 1.1.0beta3 with cache</p>
</td>
<td align="right">
<p>119.90 req/s</p>
</td>

</tr>
</table>
<p>I am too lazy to install wp-cache, but <a href="http://www.sencer.de/article/1198/weblog-software-benchmark-ii">using Sencer's benchmark to do the math</a> we should be about 50% faster than wp-cache. I will try to find the time to install wp-cache on this machine and have some real numbers, but not before we release beta3.</p>]]></description>
    </item>
	
    
  </channel>
</rss>
