Rép : some AB testing ...

[Pierre Sahores]

Dear Livecoders,

I promise to be back with some final tests and related thoughts and here they 
are. All tests went carefully done in using both ApacheBench 2.3 Revision 
1528965 and Siege 3.0.5 with same average results. Only the Siege ones are 
reported there to maintain this report as readable as possible.

--

root@pierre-X200CA:/home/pierre# siege -b -c 100 -r 50 -q 
http://192.168.1.15/index.lc
  done.

Transactions:   5000 hits
Availability:   100.00 %
Elapsed time:   85.00 secs
Data transferred:   0.65 MB
Response time:  1.68 secs
Transaction rate:   58.82 trans/sec
Throughput: 0.01 MB/sec
Concurrency:99.03
Successful transactions:5000
Failed transactions:0
Longest transaction:1.84
Shortest transaction:   0.11

code :

put "Hello World from LiveCode CGI Server" && the 
version & \
"on" && the internet date & ""

configuration :

eeePC Asus X200CA Ubuntu 14.04, Openresty 1.9.7.2 + FCGIWrap + .LC script + LC 
CGI Server 7.1.1

— 

root@pierre-X200CA:/home/pierre# siege -b -c 100 -r 50 -q 
http://192.168.1.15/index.php
  done.

Transactions:   5000 hits
Availability:   100.00 %
Elapsed time:   2.26 secs
Data transferred:   0.48 MB
Response time:  0.04 secs
Transaction rate:   2212.39 trans/sec
Throughput: 0.21 MB/sec
Concurrency:97.85
Successful transactions:5000
Failed transactions:0
Longest transaction:0.08
Shortest transaction:   0.00

code :

put "Hello World from LiveCode Application's Server" && 
the version & \
"on" && the internet date & ""

configuration :

eeePC Asus X200CA Ubuntu 14.04, Openresty 1.9.7.2 +FMP/FastCGI + .PHP 5.5.9 
sockets proxy script --> localhost:9578 --> LC 6.1.3 Application’s Server 
launched in -ui mode

— 

root@pierre-X200CA:/home/pierre# siege -b -c 100 -r 50 -q http://192.168.1.15/lc
  done.

Transactions:   5000 hits
Availability:   100.00 %
Elapsed time:   1.29 secs
Data transferred:   0.35 MB
Response time:  0.02 secs
Transaction rate:   3875.97 trans/sec
Throughput: 0.27 MB/sec
Concurrency:95.12
Successful transactions:5000
Failed transactions:0
Longest transaction:0.08
Shortest transaction:   0.00

code :

put "Hello World from LiveCode Application's Server" && 
the version & \
"on" && the internet date & " »

configuration :

eeePC Asus X200CA Ubuntu 14.04, Openresty 1.9.7.2 (Lua 5.1.a, LuaJIT 2.1) + 
ngx.lua sockets proxy --> localhost:9578 --> LC 6.1.3 Application’s Server 
launched in -ui mode

— 
 
root@pierre-X200CA:/home/pierre# siege -b -c 100 -r 50 -q 
http://192.168.1.15/lua
  done.

Transactions:   5000 hits
Availability:   100.00 %
Elapsed time:   0.69 secs
Data transferred:   0.65 MB
Response time:  0.01 secs
Transaction rate:   7246.38 trans/sec
Throughput: 0.94 MB/sec
Concurrency:52.52
Successful transactions:5000
Failed transactions:0
Longest transaction:0.37
Shortest transaction:   0.00

code :

ngx.say("Hello World from Openresty 
"..ngx.config.nginx_version.." / Ngx.Lua "..ngx.config.ngx_lua_version.." 
!on "..ngx.localtime().." +0100 
("..ngx.var.server_port..") ")

configuration :

eeePC Asus X200CA Ubuntu 14.04, Openresty 1.9.7.2 (Lua 5.1.a, LuaJIT 2.1) + 
ngx.lua script

— 

As the tests reports, an Openresty/Lua powered application’s server could be 
twice as fast as a Nginx/Livecode application’s server one but, at this point, 
this assertion still needs to be verified as long as the final performances 
will be directly impacted by the way both solutions handles memory management 
against heavy loads.

At this point, i can confirm that LC application’s server (and before it, MC 
and Rev ones) i had to setup over the 15 last years went always perfectly 
reliables in about this. 

re: some AB testing ...

[Pierre Sahores]

Hi Livecoders,

Question 1 : is Livecode application’s server really faster than Livecode CGI 
server running on Nginx, OpenLiteSpeed or Apache2 and how to get this proven 
(in counting successfully TCP connexions only) ? Just se below :

#http://localhost:80/index.lc;  # eeePCU : Nginx + FCGIWrap + 
LC CGI Server 7.1.1   --> 60 conn/sec 
#http://localhost:81/index.lc;  # eeePCU : OpenLiteSpeed CGI + 
LC CGI Server 7.1.1  --> 60 conn/sec
#http://localhost:82/index.lc;  # eeePCU : Apache 2.4.7 CGI + 
LC CGI Server 7.1.1   --> 60 conn/sec

In the three cases, it’s the same LC CGI server witch execute the following 
code on a little 350 euros eeePC (ubuntu 14.04, indeed 150% faster than both of 
my MacBooks i5 costing 1800 euros each !) :

put "Hello World from LiveCode CGI Server" && the 
version & \
"on" && the internet date & ""


Question 2 : is Livecode applications server really faster than PHP running on 
OpenResty in FMP/FastCGI mode and how to get this proven (in counting 
successfully TCP connexions only) ? Just se below :

#http://localhost/index.php;# eeePCU : Nginx + FMP/FastCGI 
+ PHP 5.5.9
# + PHP sockets 
proxy --> localhost:9578
# --> LC 6.1.3 
APP Server -ui (eeePCU)  --> 2200 conn/sec

#http://localhost/lc;   # eeePCU : Openresty 
1.9.7.2 (LuaJIT 5.1.a)
# + ngx.lua 
sockets proxy --> localhost:9578
# --> LC 6.1.3 
APP Server -ui (eeePCU)  --> 3600 conn/sec


In both cases, it’s the same LC application’s server witch execute the 
following code on a little 350 euros eeePC (ubuntu 14.04, still 150% faster 
than both my MacBooks i5 costing 1800 euros each !) :

put "Hello World from OpenLiteSpeed's LiveCode CGI 
Server" && the version & \
"on" && the internet date & ""


Note: all tests done at twice in using both ApacheBench 2.3 Revision 1528965 
and Siege 3.0.5

Stay tuned. More to come soon!

Thanks for reading,

Pierre
--
Pierre Sahores
mobile : 06 03 95 77 70
www.sahores-conseil.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

re: some AB testing ...

[Pierre Sahores]

> Hi Livecoders,
> 
> Question 1 : is Livecode application’s server really faster than Livecode CGI 
> server running on Nginx, OpenLiteSpeed or Apache2 and how to get this proven 
> (in counting successfully TCP connexions only) ? Just se below :
> 
>   #http://localhost:80/index.lc;  # eeePCU : Nginx + FCGIWrap + 
> LC CGI Server 7.1.1   --> 60 conn/sec 
>   #http://localhost:81/index.lc;  # eeePCU : OpenLiteSpeed CGI + 
> LC CGI Server 7.1.1  --> 60 conn/sec
>   #http://localhost:82/index.lc;  # eeePCU : Apache 2.4.7 CGI + 
> LC CGI Server 7.1.1   --> 60 conn/sec
> 
> In the three cases, it’s the same LC CGI server witch execute the following 
> code on a little 350 euros eeePC (ubuntu 14.04, indeed 150% faster than both 
> of my MacBooks i5 costing 1800 euros each !) :
> 
> put "Hello World from LiveCode CGI Server" && the 
> version & \
>   "on" && the internet date & ""
> 
> 
> Question 2 : is Livecode applications server really faster than PHP running 
> on OpenResty in FMP/FastCGI mode and how to get this proven (in counting 
> successfully TCP connexions only) ? Just se below :
> 
>   #http://localhost/index.php;# eeePCU : Nginx + FMP/FastCGI 
> + PHP 5.5.9
>   # + PHP sockets 
> proxy --> localhost:9578
>   # --> LC 6.1.3 
> APP Server -ui (eeePCU)  --> 2200 conn/sec
> 
>   #http://localhost/lc;   # eeePCU : Openresty 
> 1.9.7.2 (LuaJIT 5.1.a)
>   # + ngx.lua 
> sockets proxy --> localhost:9578
>   # --> LC 6.1.3 
> APP Server -ui (eeePCU)  --> 3600 conn/sec
> 
> 
> In both cases, it’s the same LC application’s server witch execute the 
> following code on a little 350 euros eeePC (ubuntu 14.04, still 150% faster 
> than both my MacBooks i5 costing 1800 euros each !) :

the mistake :
> 
> put "Hello World from OpenLiteSpeed LiveCode CGI 
> Server" && the version & \
>   "on" && the internet date & " »

seems that copying via the adequate edit menu item only works under LC 6.1.3 / 
ubuntu 14.04 (nope via mouse right)

the correction :

put "Hello World from LiveCode Application's Server" && 
the version & \
"on" && the internet date & " »

...

> Note: all tests done at twice in using both ApacheBench 2.3 Revision 1528965 
> and Siege 3.0.5
> 
> Stay tuned. More to come soon!
> 
> Thanks for reading,
> 
> Pierre
> --
> Pierre Sahores
> mobile : 06 03 95 77 70
> www.sahores-conseil.com

--
Pierre Sahores
mobile : 06 03 95 77 70
www.sahores-conseil.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: some AB testing ...

[Richard Gaskin]

Pierre Sahores wrote:


Le 9 févr. 2016 à 01:27, Richard Gaskin a écrit :

Pierre Sahores wrote:

> Story made short : Appart the amazing Lua platform (preferably set
> as an Openresty one), well configured LC application’s servers
> still outperforms anything available around (Websphere, Tomcat,
> PHP5/7, Perl5, NodeJS, Go, Python, RoR,…). In-between, LC
> application’s server is 60 times faster than the stock’s Livecode
> CGI Server.

...


Can we have the story made long? :)


Only related to the test config set-up using voluntarily a very
minimalistic cluster of 3 low-powered boxes. Nginx does perfectly the
load-balancer job (very low top average) but OpenLiteSpeed should
have being a good proposal too in the same rôle (untested), where
lighttpd or apache2 seemed less productive, at least, at first glance.


What do you mean by "LC application’s servers"?  A socket server?


Precisely.


Can you share some code?


Not at this time.


I look forward to when you can.

I use standalones as CGIs exclusively, using LC Server only for testing 
to help others.  I've not considered a possible performance gain in 
doing so; I do it mostly to have things that are testable in the IDE. It 
would be helpful to be able to pin down where the performance difference 
lie so Server can be made at least as efficient as using a standalone 
for CGI work - speed is so much more critical in a CGI context than on 
the desktop.


As for socket servers, last night I ran a test pitting a slim HTTPd made 
in LC (inspired by Raney's mchttpd.mc, but using new code), and I found 
good news and bad news:


The bad news is that even a slender HTTPd in LC was only slightly more 
than half as fast as Apache2.


The good news was that a slender HTTPd thrown together in a couple hours 
in LC scripts was more than half as fast as the highly-optimized C 
written by a team of specialists in Apache2! :)


HTTP isn't the heaviest protocol in the world, but it's also not the 
lightest.  It may be a bit much to expect that a LiveCode script could 
outperform Apache, and far more realistic to compare it to PHP and 
Python, where it's not surprising it performs very favorably.


But if time and circumstances permit, it would be helpful to learn 
whatever details you can share on your experiments.  Your work has 
always been among the most inspiring in our community with regard to 
using LC on servers, and we can learn much from your good efforts.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: some AB testing ...

[Matt Maier]

Is that the maximum theoretical value? The actual connections per second
would depend on the size of the data and how much processing it needs,
right?

Also, what is Livecode Application Server?

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Pierre Sahores 
wrote:

> Hi Livecoders,
>
> Story made short : Appart the amazing Lua platform (preferably set as an
> Openresty one), well configured LC application’s servers still outperforms
> anything available around (Websphere, Tomcat, PHP5/7, Perl5, NodeJS, Go,
> Python, RoR,…). In-between, LC application’s server is 60 times faster than
> the stock’s Livecode CGI Server. Using Nginx as the load balancer of the
> same LC app running on clustered front-end servers can make a very reliable
> scalable configuration : 1500 connections for each server added to the
> cluster. In taking care to scale the ACID-SQL backend cluster as attendee,
> the platform can handle very high-end solutions at a fraction of the cost
> of more known main stream proposals.
>
> What the story don’t tell is that the still mono-theaded LC engine don’t
> crashes nor slowdown against heavy loads where Java powered ones does
> (mostly because Java’s heap space shared memory unreliability and the cache
> misconfiguration surprises) and PHP too, because too many unreliable
> frameworks used in front of it (Symphony 2, etc…).
>
> ...
>
> upstream proxy_cluster {
>
> # Test protocol : ab -c 100 -n 5000 http://192.168.1.15/
> #(ApacheBench 2.3 Revision 1528965)
> # LC CGI Server = Livecode Server (community and
> commercial editions) MacOSX version 7.1.1
> # LC App Server = Livecode commercial standalone MacOSX
> 6.6.5 (note : 7.1.1 35% slower)
> # PHP sockets proxy = TCP sockets client proxying REST
> GET/POST requests to LC App Server
> # eeePCU = Asus X200CA 1.5 Ghz Ubuntu 14.04 + multi web
> configs on ports 80 to 84 (see below)
> # MBPi24 = MacBook Pro i5 2.4 Ghz running Apache 2.4.16 +
> Apache 2.0 Handler + PHP 5.6.17
> # MBPi25 = MacBook Pro i5 2.5 Ghz running Apache 2.4.16 +
> Apache 2.0 Handler + PHP 5.6.17
>
> #server localhost:80;   # eeePCU : Nginx +
> FCGIWrap + LC CGI Server --> 25 conn/sec
> #server localhost:81;   # eeePCU : OpenLiteSpeed
> CGI + LC CGI Server--> 25 conn/sec
> #server localhost:82;   # eeePCU : Apache 2.4.7
> CGI + LC CGI Server --> 25 conn/sec
>
> #server 192.168.1.21:80;# MBPi24 : Apache 2.4.16
> CGI + LC CGI Server--> 25 conn/sec
> #server 192.168.1.25:80;# MBPi25 : Apache 2.4.16
> CGI + LC CGI Server--> 25 conn/sec
>
> #server localhost:80;   # eeePCU : Nginx +
> FCGIWrap + Perl 5.18.2
> # + Perl
> sockets proxy --> 192.168.1.25:9578
> # --> LC
> 6.6.5 APP Server (MBPi525) --> 40 conn/sec
>
> #server 192.168.1.21:80;# MBPi24 : PHP sockets
> proxy + LC APP Server-->   125 conn/sec
> #server 192.168.1.25:80;# MBPi25 : PHP sockets
> proxy + LC APP Server-->   125 conn/sec
> #server 192.168.1.25:80;# MBPi25 : FastCGI
> EAppClass + LC APP Server-->   125 conn/sec
>
> #server localhost:84;   # eeePCU : Nginx +
> FMP/FastCGI + PHP 5.5.9  -->   700 conn/sec
> #server localhost:82;   # eeePCU : Apache 2.4.7 +
> A 2.0 + PHP 5.5.9 -->   800 conn/sec
> #server localhost:81;   # eeePCU : OpenLiteSpeed +
> V6.8 + PHP 5.6.14--> 1000 conn/sec
>
> #server localhost:80;   # eeePCU : Nginx +
> FMP/FastCGI + PHP 5.5.9
> # + PHP
> sockets proxy --> 192.168.1.25:9578
> # --> LC
> 6.6.5 APP Server (MBPi525) --> 1500 conn/sec
>
> server localhost:81;# eeePCU :
> OpenLiteSpeed + V6.8 + PHP 5.6.14
> # + PHP
> sockets proxy --> 192.168.1.21:9578
> # --> LC
> 6.6.5 APP Server (MBPi524) --> 1500 conn/sec
>
> server localhost:82;# eeePCU : Apache
> 2.4.7 + A 2.0 + PHP 5.5.9
> # + PHP
> sockets proxy --> 192.168.1.25:9578
> # --> LC
> 6.6.5 APP Server 

Re: some AB testing ...

[Pierre Sahores]

> Le 9 févr. 2016 à 01:27, Richard Gaskin  a écrit :
> 
> Pierre Sahores wrote:
> 
> > Story made short : Appart the amazing Lua platform (preferably set as
> > an Openresty one), well configured LC application’s servers still
> > outperforms anything available around (Websphere, Tomcat, PHP5/7,
> > Perl5, NodeJS, Go, Python, RoR,…). In-between, LC application’s
> > server is 60 times faster than the stock’s Livecode CGI Server.
> > Using Nginx as the load balancer of the same LC app running on
> > clustered front-end servers can make a very reliable scalable
> > configuration : 1500 connections for each server added to the
> > cluster. In taking care to scale the ACID-SQL backend cluster as
> > attendee, the platform can handle very high-end solutions at a
> > fraction of the cost of more known main stream proposals.
> 
> Can we have the story made long? :)

Only related to the test config set-up using voluntarily a very minimalistic 
cluster of 3 low-powered boxes. Nginx does perfectly the load-balancer job 
(very low top average) but OpenLiteSpeed should have being a good proposal too 
in the same rôle (untested), where lighttpd or apache2 seemed less productive, 
at least, at first glance.
> 
> What do you mean by "LC application’s servers"?  A socket server?  

Precisely.

> Can you share some code?

Not at this time. The final release will probably not rely on a PHP sockets 
proxy script anymore but on a direct FastCGI set-up with the advantage to 
provide a way to relaunch automatically the app’s sever instances in case of 
need; an ExternalAppClass directive will replace the PHP sockets proxy script 
in the new set-up. Each app node will rely on its own localhost web server 
instead of on the currents ones, for yet, running on the box witch hosts the 
Nginx proxy server. The ACID-SQL back-end cluster will, in a first time, runs 
only a PostgreSQL 9 instance and, if needed, (but i’m reserved on this point, 
as long as PostgreSQL should be able to handle 10 of thousands of connections 
at once without stress), a master instance dedicated to write operations and 
two slave nodes dedicated to read operations and master writes replications 
(one box peer PostgreSQL instance). To avoid unwanted side-effects, this 
configuration will not rely on UDP sockets « à la Oracle VLAN’s » at all to 
synchronize data flows in-between db nodes.

Cheers,

Pierre

> 
> Exciting stuff - eager to learn more
> 
> -- 
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World Systems
> Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
> 
> ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

--
Pierre Sahores
mobile : 06 03 95 77 70
www.sahores-conseil.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

some AB testing ...

[Pierre Sahores]

Hi Livecoders,

Story made short : Appart the amazing Lua platform (preferably set as an 
Openresty one), well configured LC application’s servers still outperforms 
anything available around (Websphere, Tomcat, PHP5/7, Perl5, NodeJS, Go, 
Python, RoR,…). In-between, LC application’s server is 60 times faster than the 
stock’s Livecode CGI Server. Using Nginx as the load balancer of the same LC 
app running on clustered front-end servers can make a very reliable scalable 
configuration : 1500 connections for each server added to the cluster. In 
taking care to scale the ACID-SQL backend cluster as attendee, the platform can 
handle very high-end solutions at a fraction of the cost of more known main 
stream proposals.

What the story don’t tell is that the still mono-theaded LC engine don’t 
crashes nor slowdown against heavy loads where Java powered ones does (mostly 
because Java’s heap space shared memory unreliability and the cache 
misconfiguration surprises) and PHP too, because too many unreliable frameworks 
used in front of it (Symphony 2, etc…).

...

upstream proxy_cluster {

# Test protocol : ab -c 100 -n 5000 http://192.168.1.15/ 
#(ApacheBench 2.3 Revision 1528965)
# LC CGI Server = Livecode Server (community and commercial 
editions) MacOSX version 7.1.1
# LC App Server = Livecode commercial standalone MacOSX 6.6.5 
(note : 7.1.1 35% slower)
# PHP sockets proxy = TCP sockets client proxying REST GET/POST 
requests to LC App Server
# eeePCU = Asus X200CA 1.5 Ghz Ubuntu 14.04 + multi web configs 
on ports 80 to 84 (see below)
# MBPi24 = MacBook Pro i5 2.4 Ghz running Apache 2.4.16 + 
Apache 2.0 Handler + PHP 5.6.17
# MBPi25 = MacBook Pro i5 2.5 Ghz running Apache 2.4.16 + 
Apache 2.0 Handler + PHP 5.6.17

#server localhost:80;   # eeePCU : Nginx + FCGIWrap + 
LC CGI Server --> 25 conn/sec
#server localhost:81;   # eeePCU : OpenLiteSpeed CGI + 
LC CGI Server--> 25 conn/sec
#server localhost:82;   # eeePCU : Apache 2.4.7 CGI + 
LC CGI Server --> 25 conn/sec

#server 192.168.1.21:80;# MBPi24 : Apache 2.4.16 CGI + 
LC CGI Server--> 25 conn/sec
#server 192.168.1.25:80;# MBPi25 : Apache 2.4.16 CGI + 
LC CGI Server--> 25 conn/sec

#server localhost:80;   # eeePCU : Nginx + FCGIWrap + 
Perl 5.18.2
# + Perl 
sockets proxy --> 192.168.1.25:9578
# --> LC 6.6.5 
APP Server (MBPi525) --> 40 conn/sec

#server 192.168.1.21:80;# MBPi24 : PHP sockets proxy + 
LC APP Server-->   125 conn/sec
#server 192.168.1.25:80;# MBPi25 : PHP sockets proxy + 
LC APP Server-->   125 conn/sec
#server 192.168.1.25:80;# MBPi25 : FastCGI EAppClass + 
LC APP Server-->   125 conn/sec

#server localhost:84;   # eeePCU : Nginx + FMP/FastCGI 
+ PHP 5.5.9  -->   700 conn/sec
#server localhost:82;   # eeePCU : Apache 2.4.7 + A 2.0 
+ PHP 5.5.9 -->   800 conn/sec
#server localhost:81;   # eeePCU : OpenLiteSpeed + V6.8 
+ PHP 5.6.14--> 1000 conn/sec

#server localhost:80;   # eeePCU : Nginx + FMP/FastCGI 
+ PHP 5.5.9
# + PHP sockets 
proxy --> 192.168.1.25:9578
# --> LC 6.6.5 
APP Server (MBPi525) --> 1500 conn/sec

server localhost:81;# eeePCU : 
OpenLiteSpeed + V6.8 + PHP 5.6.14
# + PHP sockets 
proxy --> 192.168.1.21:9578
# --> LC 6.6.5 
APP Server (MBPi524) --> 1500 conn/sec

server localhost:82;# eeePCU : Apache 2.4.7 
+ A 2.0 + PHP 5.5.9
# + PHP sockets 
proxy --> 192.168.1.25:9578
# --> LC 6.6.5 
APP Server (MBPi525) --> 1500 conn/sec

#server localhost:82;   # eeePCU : Apache 2.4.7 + 
mod_lua

Re: some AB testing ...

[Richard Gaskin]

Pierre Sahores wrote:

> Story made short : Appart the amazing Lua platform (preferably set as
> an Openresty one), well configured LC application’s servers still
> outperforms anything available around (Websphere, Tomcat, PHP5/7,
> Perl5, NodeJS, Go, Python, RoR,…). In-between, LC application’s
> server is 60 times faster than the stock’s Livecode CGI Server.
> Using Nginx as the load balancer of the same LC app running on
> clustered front-end servers can make a very reliable scalable
> configuration : 1500 connections for each server added to the
> cluster. In taking care to scale the ACID-SQL backend cluster as
> attendee, the platform can handle very high-end solutions at a
> fraction of the cost of more known main stream proposals.

Can we have the story made long? :)

What do you mean by "LC application’s servers"?  A socket server?  Can 
you share some code?


Exciting stuff - eager to learn more

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode