@Walther: I think I did a mistake indeed. There is a missing slash by the end of 1.2.6 url address (http://serverbenchmark/cakephp-1.2.6 vs http://serverbenchmark/cakephp-1.2.6/).
1.3.0-RC1 out performed the 1.2.6. Thanks for the help On Mar 6, 2:25 am, Walther <waltherl...@gmail.com> wrote: > @Dérico: I believe that your server is configured incorrectly. I can't > seem to replicate the same results, in my case CakePHP 1.3 outperforms > 1.2.6 (I am using Apache 2.2 which may be the difference). Also make > sure that you have debugging off before you benchmark anything. > > These are the best results out of 20 runs with each: > > CakePHP 1.3: > cakephp$ ab -n 1000 -c 100 http://<server>/cakephp > This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 655654 $> > Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd,http://www.zeustech.net/ > Licensed to The Apache Software Foundation,http://www.apache.org/ > > Benchmarking 192.168.1.10 (be patient) > Completed 100 requests > Completed 200 requests > Completed 300 requests > Completed 400 requests > Completed 500 requests > Completed 600 requests > Completed 700 requests > Completed 800 requests > Completed 900 requests > Completed 1000 requests > Finished 1000 requests > > Server Software: Apache/2.2.12 > Server Hostname: 192.168.1.10 > Server Port: 80 > > Document Path: /cakephp > Document Length: 314 bytes > > Concurrency Level: 100 > Time taken for tests: 0.168 seconds > Complete requests: 1000 > Failed requests: 0 > Write errors: 0 > Non-2xx responses: 1000 > Total transferred: 565000 bytes > HTML transferred: 314000 bytes > Requests per second: 5959.76 [#/sec] (mean) > Time per request: 16.779 [ms] (mean) > Time per request: 0.168 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent > requests) > Transfer rate: 3288.34 [Kbytes/sec] received > > Connection Times (ms) > min mean[+/-sd] median max > Connect: 0 0 1.1 0 4 > Processing: 2 16 2.9 16 34 > Waiting: 2 16 2.8 16 29 > Total: 6 16 2.0 17 34 > > Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) > 50% 17 > 66% 17 > 75% 17 > 80% 17 > 90% 17 > 95% 17 > 98% 18 > 99% 18 > 100% 34 (longest request) > > CakePHP 1.2.6: > cakephp$ ab -n 1000 -c 100 http://<server>/cakephp > This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 655654 $> > Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd,http://www.zeustech.net/ > Licensed to The Apache Software Foundation,http://www.apache.org/ > > Benchmarking 192.168.1.10 (be patient) > Completed 100 requests > Completed 200 requests > Completed 300 requests > Completed 400 requests > Completed 500 requests > Completed 600 requests > Completed 700 requests > Completed 800 requests > Completed 900 requests > Completed 1000 requests > Finished 1000 requests > > Server Software: Apache/2.2.12 > Server Hostname: 192.168.1.10 > Server Port: 80 > > Document Path: /cakephp > Document Length: 314 bytes > > Concurrency Level: 100 > Time taken for tests: 0.190 seconds > Complete requests: 1000 > Failed requests: 0 > Write errors: 0 > Non-2xx responses: 1000 > Total transferred: 565000 bytes > HTML transferred: 314000 bytes > Requests per second: 5259.45 [#/sec] (mean) > Time per request: 19.013 [ms] (mean) > Time per request: 0.190 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent > requests) > Transfer rate: 2901.94 [Kbytes/sec] received > > Connection Times (ms) > min mean[+/-sd] median max > Connect: 0 2 6.7 0 24 > Processing: 2 16 2.7 17 31 > Waiting: 2 16 2.7 17 31 > Total: 13 18 4.6 17 37 > > Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) > 50% 17 > 66% 17 > 75% 17 > 80% 17 > 90% 18 > 95% 31 > 98% 35 > 99% 36 > 100% 37 (longest request) > > To summarise: > 1.3 gets 5959.7 requests per second > 1.2.6 gets 5259.45 requests per second > and to throw a spanner into the works a simple php file with only echo > 'Hello world' in gets 3604 requests per second > > I therefor conclude that CakePHP is faster then no framework at > all.... > > On Mar 5, 10:05 pm, Dérico Filho <uldericofi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > @WebbedIT > > > I think you're missing the point here. I am not trying to assess the > > supposed advantage in using CakePHP. > > > I am trying to assess its weight. Whatever the application you > > develop, when you choose using a framework you MUST understand how it > > is going to affect the overall performance. > > > The whole idea behind "hello world" benchmarks is to provide the > > leanness of a framework. The leaner the better. > > > You see, we, as CakePHP users, must defend it against creeping > > featuritis... I do enjoy these powerful tools CakePHP offer... > > However, I DO NEED a lean framework. > > > The tradeoff "more features mean less performance" should be frown > > upon and avoided wherever is possible. > > > @RobertP > > > Although I understand your choice, I deem to be one of the worst > > attitudes towards CakePHP community. I mean, if you know a patch > > created a performance problem, and you DO know how to solve it better > > or more elegantly... please, patch it and have it sent to the > > development team. I am sure they will check out and listen to you. > > > I did it with SSN validation check, and my patched was accepted. > > > On Mar 5, 6:34 am, WebbedIT <p...@webbedit.co.uk> wrote: > > > > @Derico > > > Whilst it would be interesting to hear from the developers as to why > > > there is such as big difference between those numbers I must state > > > that we've been here many times before and benchmarking an > > > installation of CakePHP to echo "Hello World" is not a true benchmark > > > of the frameworks abilities. > > > > Who in their right mind would install such a framework to echo "Hello > > > World"? They would sensibly code a single HTML/PHP page which would > > > beat the crap out of any framework's benchmark as they are not > > > intended to facilitate such menial tasks. > > > > You need to test the performance of an application to get a true > > > picture of how the versions compare against one another as I doubt > > > there have been any modifications to code to improve the performance > > > of running a single PHP echo command. > > > > What happens to those requests per second when you start using > > > behaviours, components, plugins etc? > > > > @Robert P > > > > > I'm currently enjoying a sensible framework. > > > > Which framework are you using instead and what is your criteria set > > > which deems CakePHP to not be a sensible framework? > > > > I personally am sticking with 1.2.x until 1.3 has been stable for some > > > time whilst others have been running production sites on 1.3 for some > > > time and I have not seen many threads questioning its performance. Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://cakeqs.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CakePHP" group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en
