Re: Performace...
Kee Hinckley wrote: At 2:27 PM -0500 3/23/02, Geoffrey Young wrote: you might be interested in Joshua Chamas' ongoing benchmark project: [EMAIL PROTECTED]">http://mathforum.org/epigone/modperl/sercrerdprou/[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.chamas.com/bench/ he has the results from a benchmark of Apache::Registry and plain handlers, as well as comparisons between HTML::Mason, Embperl, and other templating engines. Although there are lots of qualifiers on those benchmarks, I consider them rather dangerous anyway. They are Hello World benchmarks, in which startup time completely dominates the time. The things that distinguish more sophisticated solutions from basic CGI or even modules are elements such as caching, pre-compiling and other techniques directly aimed at improving real-world performance. Hello World isn't going to show those at all. The mathforum link above points to more recent results which includes an h2000 test which is a more complex 3K+ script producing 20K+ in output. You will see in those results Embperl getting near the same performance as PHP. I would agree, the normal hello world test does not go far to measure the runtime characteristics of web application environment. To this end I would like to do things like database benchmarks scripts too for the various environments, but it will be a long time in coming as it is a lot of work to set up these tests. You can get the latest benchmarks at http://www.chamas.com/bench/hello.tar.gz The results posted at chamas.com/bench are older which were compiled from various system from various people at various times, and have not been updated in quite some time (my bad). The downloadable benchmarks are ones that you can run yourself which generally produces the most relevant results. --Josh _ Joshua Chamas Chamas Enterprises Inc. NodeWorks Founder Huntington Beach, CA USA http://www.nodeworks.com1-714-625-4051
Re: Performace...
At 2:27 PM -0500 3/23/02, Geoffrey Young wrote: you might be interested in Joshua Chamas' ongoing benchmark project: [EMAIL PROTECTED]">http://mathforum.org/epigone/modperl/sercrerdprou/[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.chamas.com/bench/ he has the results from a benchmark of Apache::Registry and plain handlers, as well as comparisons between HTML::Mason, Embperl, and other templating engines. Although there are lots of qualifiers on those benchmarks, I consider them rather dangerous anyway. They are Hello World benchmarks, in which startup time completely dominates the time. The things that distinguish more sophisticated solutions from basic CGI or even modules are elements such as caching, pre-compiling and other techniques directly aimed at improving real-world performance. Hello World isn't going to show those at all. -- Kee Hinckley - Somewhere.Com, LLC http://consulting.somewhere.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
Re: Performace...
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Kee Hinckley wrote: At 2:27 PM -0500 3/23/02, Geoffrey Young wrote: you might be interested in Joshua Chamas' ongoing benchmark project: [EMAIL PROTECTED]">http://mathforum.org/epigone/modperl/sercrerdprou/[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.chamas.com/bench/ he has the results from a benchmark of Apache::Registry and plain handlers, as well as comparisons between HTML::Mason, Embperl, and other templating engines. Although there are lots of qualifiers on those benchmarks, I consider them rather dangerous anyway. They are Hello World benchmarks, in which startup time completely dominates the time. The things that That explains why Embperl did so poorly compared to PHP, yet when we replaced our PHP pages with Embperl, our benchmarks using real user queries, sending the same queries through the old and new pages, the new pages showed a 50% performance boost. Note: that gain was enough to saturate our test network. Our purpose for the benchmark was to determine if it was an improvement or not, not to determine the exact improvement, so we don't really know what the real gain was. The same machines do several other tasks, and our monitoring at the time of change was not very sophisticated, so we only really know it was a big win. Something on the order of 37 load issues the week before the change, most of which were fairly obviously web overload, and two the week after (those two being very obviously associated with other services the boxes are running.) Ed
Performace...
Im curious as to the difference in performance when using perl scripts with Apache::Registry or writing complete Apache Modules in Perl that conform to the API? -jve
Re: Performace...
John Von Essen wrote: Im curious as to the difference in performance when using perl scripts with Apache::Registry or writing complete Apache Modules in Perl that conform to the API? straight mod_perl handlers are faster than Apache::Registry, but they lack some of the convenience that you might be looking for in an application that has lots of dynamic components. you might be interested in Joshua Chamas' ongoing benchmark project: [EMAIL PROTECTED]">http://mathforum.org/epigone/modperl/sercrerdprou/[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.chamas.com/bench/ he has the results from a benchmark of Apache::Registry and plain handlers, as well as comparisons between HTML::Mason, Embperl, and other templating engines. HTH --Geoff
Re: Performace...
Im curious as to the difference in performance when using perl scripts with Apache::Registry or writing complete Apache Modules in Perl that conform to the API? Check the list archives for benchmarks by Joshua Chamas. Note that there are other reasons to use handlers instead of Registry, which you will also find in the archives. - Perrin
