Hi, >> Andreas - want me to go ahead and get you some hardware to test Ben's >> patch in the mean time? This way we'll at least not leave it hanging >> until the last moment... > > I will also try this with two 20-core machines connected 10G on > Monday.
I measured the performace of GHC head, 7.8.3 and 7.8.3 + Ben's patch set. Server: witty 8080 -r -a -s +RTS -N<n> *1 Measurement tool: weighttp -n 100000 -c 1000 -k -t 19 http://192.168.0.1:8080/ Measurement env: two 20 core (w/o HT) machines directly connected 10G Here is result (req/s): -N<n> 1 2 4 8 16 --------------------------------------------------------- head 92,855 155,957 306,813 498,613 527,034 7.8.3 86,494 160,321 310,675 494,020 510,751 7.8.3+ben 37,608 69,376 131,686 237,783 333,946 head and 7.8.3 has almost the same performance. But I saw significant performance regression in Ben's patch set. *1 https://github.com/kazu-yamamoto/witty/blob/master/README.md P.S. - Scalability is not linear as you can see. - prefork (witty -n <n>) got much better result than Mio (witty +RTS <n>) (677,837 req/s for witty 8080 -r -a -s -n 16) --Kazu _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
