Re: Benchmarked
ASW would be interesting as that's a very common use case for us and I am sure many other people. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Koaps Freeman wrote: > I was initially playing with Erlang, talk about good times, and I just got > frustrated trying to do things I can do easily in Ruby and decided to fall > back to Camping which I like a lot. > > Then I came across Celluloid (http://celluloid.io/) and with it on JRuby > you can pretty much take full advantage of all your CPU cores. > > Plus it does the 'let it fail' actor model, so when your Camping app > crashes, it just restarts the actor again. > > This can make for a really robust webapp with all the benefits of running > within a JVM. > > I then saw Reel-Rack which made running Camping easier, but I had the > question of, how good would the performance be with all the overhead of JVM > - JRuby - Celluloid::IO - Reel - Reel-Rack - Camping. > > That's when I started putting together the benchmark project just to see > how that setup would look against a MRI version of my webapps. > > The simple tests don't really do it much justice, I'm starting to play > with DCell and ZeroMQ, so I might try to come up with some examples where > JRuby can use all the cores and see how MRI does with the same code. > > I also tried to play with Rubinis but ran into install issues with some > Gems so I decided to stick with JRuby. > > I'm also on SmartOS in a Zone and KVM for Linux, so the tests might be > completely different on a pure linux install on the same hardware, for > better or worse. > > Would be interesting to see but I'm not going to rebuild my server to find > out, maybe I'll try it in AWS or something. > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tim Uckun wrote: > >> >> Those are fascinating and very surprising results. >> >> I thought for sure trinidad would rule over all of them. The performance >> of Puma is also very surprising. >> >> So do you think there is any reason to use jruby at all given your >> benchmarks. MRI seems to be pretty good. >> >> ___ >> Camping-list mailing list >> Camping-list@rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list >> > > > ___ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: Benchmarked
I was initially playing with Erlang, talk about good times, and I just got frustrated trying to do things I can do easily in Ruby and decided to fall back to Camping which I like a lot. Then I came across Celluloid (http://celluloid.io/) and with it on JRuby you can pretty much take full advantage of all your CPU cores. Plus it does the 'let it fail' actor model, so when your Camping app crashes, it just restarts the actor again. This can make for a really robust webapp with all the benefits of running within a JVM. I then saw Reel-Rack which made running Camping easier, but I had the question of, how good would the performance be with all the overhead of JVM - JRuby - Celluloid::IO - Reel - Reel-Rack - Camping. That's when I started putting together the benchmark project just to see how that setup would look against a MRI version of my webapps. The simple tests don't really do it much justice, I'm starting to play with DCell and ZeroMQ, so I might try to come up with some examples where JRuby can use all the cores and see how MRI does with the same code. I also tried to play with Rubinis but ran into install issues with some Gems so I decided to stick with JRuby. I'm also on SmartOS in a Zone and KVM for Linux, so the tests might be completely different on a pure linux install on the same hardware, for better or worse. Would be interesting to see but I'm not going to rebuild my server to find out, maybe I'll try it in AWS or something. On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tim Uckun wrote: > > Those are fascinating and very surprising results. > > I thought for sure trinidad would rule over all of them. The performance > of Puma is also very surprising. > > So do you think there is any reason to use jruby at all given your > benchmarks. MRI seems to be pretty good. > > ___ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: Benchmarked
Those are fascinating and very surprising results. I thought for sure trinidad would rule over all of them. The performance of Puma is also very surprising. So do you think there is any reason to use jruby at all given your benchmarks. MRI seems to be pretty good. ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Benchmarked
Hi guys, I wanted to share my latest little project with you. While it's not totally camping specific, it does use camping as it's main test bed. http://nullworks.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/benchmarked/ https://github.com/koaps/benmark Basically it's my attempt at seeing what ruby server does a decent job on JRuby as a camping server. Take a look and feel free to let me know of any improvements that can be done. Thanks ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
