On 11.12.2006, at 06:17, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
The results are somewhat bad, Naviserver is 2x slower on simple adp
page
comparing to similar PHP page.
Not that the channel stuff I added some time is braking us...
Did you try the aolserver, as it does not use Tcl channels
at the places we
It is all defaults, as php and NS. I even tried to test test.html, but
still apache is almost twice fatster than fastpath.
Changing to clock did not make any difference. Playing with fancy
non-fancy ADP parsers did not change anything as well. Looks like
deficiency in Tcl and driver/queue
On 11.12.2006, at 16:13, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
Looks like
deficiency in Tcl and driver/queue processing.
If you use static pages, then Tcl whould be included
only when accessing Tcl FS. That's why I asked if
you can try aolserver under same circumstances,
as it does not call Tcl FS for that
I tested AS 4.5, it is even slower than NS, not much but a little bit
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
On 11.12.2006, at 06:17, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
The results are somewhat bad, Naviserver is 2x slower on simple adp
page
comparing to similar PHP page.
Not that the channel stuff I added some time
On 11.12.2006, at 16:27, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
I tested AS 4.5, it is even slower than NS, not much but a little bit
Well, then it is not the Tcl channel stuff as 4.5 still uses
open/read. In that case it must be something else. I guess you
need to put shortcircuit code at various places to
I can sqeeze something from C maybe, but Tcl is a bottleneck, making
for loop bigger than over 200-500 iterations makes it crawl comparing
to PHP, even with Tcl files cached, still it is 2-3 times slower. I am
evaluating stuff for high performance web site and it looks like Tcl
alone makes
On 11.12.2006, at 17:04, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
It is hard to convince to use 2-3 times slower
language even if the whole system is more versatile
I think you need to make some realistic examples
and then compare. But this is out of the scope of
this discussion.
We need/should know where we
On 12/11/06, Vlad Seryakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can sqeeze something from C maybe, but Tcl is a bottleneck, making
for loop bigger than over 200-500 iterations makes it crawl comparing
to PHP, even with Tcl files cached, still it is 2-3 times slower. I am
evaluating stuff for high
No i am not moving to PHP, i am just trying to to justify the reason for
some people why i am still using Naviserver/Tcl and do not want to
switch to more modern or popular platforms like PHP, Java, Python or
Ruby. If nothing else, the problem only arise when comparing speed, not
overall
yes, it is slower than from .adp page
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
On 11.12.2006, at 23:21, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
Getting to C language every time i need to do stuff is not an option
Did yu try ns_return as Stephen suggested?
Then i disabled .tcl caching, results are constantly around 1500 req/sec
and i checked PHP source, it does compile file with every request, so
PHP compiler is little bit faster than Tcl compiler.
when you install the Zend Optimizer (with default optimization levels), how
much does that speed
11 matches
Mail list logo
