what happens, if you try byte-compiled code, e.g.:
test.adp
Test list <%=[ns_fmttime [ns_time]]%>
<%
proc foo {n} { for { set i 0 } { $i < $n } { incr i } { ns_adp_puts $i }}
foo 50
%>
So, what if readahead > bufsize, what does that mean? When we
read-ahead, we read directly into the buffer. If the buffer is
read-ahead sized, no point reading in smaller than neccessary bufsize
chunks.
What if readahead < bufsize? Does it mean the buffer will never be
fully filled? What kind of
On 12/12/06, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now in this case, you tested the acceptsize knob, found that if you
> turn it up there's an improvement, and if you leave it free to float
> all the way up it hurts nothing. You discovered that there's one
> correct setting: on. Or at least,
Now in this case, you tested the acceptsize knob, found that if you
turn it up there's an improvement, and if you leave it free to float
all the way up it hurts nothing. You discovered that there's one
correct setting: on. Or at least, you have no evidence to suggest when
you ever would turn it do
On 12/12/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12.12.2006, at 18:54, Stephen Deasey wrote:
> I am weeping quietly into my sleeve...
Why? (more info!)
Because some dead guys figured it all out before I was even born and I
sometimes feel that I am wasting my time, and that the wo
On 12/12/06, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree, to many knobs but hey, postgresql has it also and they always
had such questions of how many bufers ineed to allocate, how much
memory for sort, for temp. They got tired and on install now it tries to
detect what is possible and set
On 12.12.2006, at 18:54, Stephen Deasey wrote:
I am weeping quietly into my sleeve...
Why? (more info!)
My collegue writing dynamic pages uses that
for years and he told me he cannot understand
how other folks can program with that arcane
mixture of programing lauguage's and html markup.
And
I agree, to many knobs but hey, postgresql has it also and they always
had such questions of how many bufers ineed to allocate, how much
memory for sort, for temp. They got tired and on install now it tries to
detect what is possible and set appropriate settings. but the knobs are
still there
On 12/12/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
html {
table {
for {set i 0} {$i < 10} {incr i} {
tr {
td {
}
td {
...
}
}
}
}
}
I am w
On 12/12/06, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When i started this i did not want to be the fastest, i wanted to see
where we stand, even if it would turn out that we are the slowest, that
would mean it requires some work in optimization area. I am not looking
around for the fastest toolk
On 12.12.2006, at 17:59, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
at least it requires special tuning or producing specific Tcl code
to be
as fast as others
That is, if you keep all your vital Tcl processing encapsulated
in procedures and use Tcl sparsely in the adp page, you are OK.
Isn't this also going to h
When i started this i did not want to be the fastest, i wanted to see
where we stand, even if it would turn out that we are the slowest, that
would mean it requires some work in optimization area. I am not looking
around for the fastest toolkit to switch, but as i told i caught myself
thinking
I understand, i tried 500 concurrent requests to do 5, NS did at
1200 req/sec easy, but apache produced 70 processed and barely finished,
i guess my machine started swaping and average was 800 req/sec
Real example is good to have but to have an idea how it works with
simple one is not bad
On 12/12/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12.12.2006, at 17:29, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
> nope, it made it even slower :-))
So we are the fastest on the planet
(at least under circumstaces=) :-)
This planet..?
On 12.12.2006, at 17:29, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
nope, it made it even slower :-))
So we are the fastest on the planet
(at least under circumstaces=) :-)
On 12/11/06, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
I actually even tried to test PHP inside Naviserver, same file, it was
much slower than under Apache and .adp. I specifically chose simple
examples and no DB, i wanted to see how simple web pages are served. I
always though that Apache/P
nope, it made it even slower :-))
In the Optimizer doc the only way to really improve is to use
precompiled files
Bernd Eidenschink wrote:
I tried Zend Optimizer, still same speed, i guess there could PHP tricks
to speed up things i am not aware of
Maybe putting PHP for loop into a function?
> I tried Zend Optimizer, still same speed, i guess there could PHP tricks
> to speed up things i am not aware of
Maybe putting PHP for loop into a function? :-)))
Test list
I tried Zend Optimizer, still same speed, i guess there could PHP tricks
to speed up things i am not aware of
Bernd Eidenschink wrote:
How do i install Zend optimizer?
In order to download it, you have to create an account on their website.
See http://www.zend.com/downloads
"Zend Optimizer"
yes, i played with all those settings, not significant, i start with 10
threads, then i tried with 30 threads, usually first run is slow but
after that it runs at full speed. I checked nsstats.conf for lock
contention and even tried to disable some for testing purposes, no big
difference, i wou
> How do i install Zend optimizer?
In order to download it, you have to create an account on their website.
See http://www.zend.com/downloads
"Zend Optimizer" (right column).
The latest should be ZendOptimizer-3.2.0 (For PHP 5.2.x).
There's an install script which you run as root. It asks you w
Yes, i tried setting it to 1024 with maxqueuesize 1024 and it does not
make noticeable difference, with 10 and 1024 it runs at the same rate. I
guess it will depend on the application, this knob can be useful tuning
thing and it is not universal
Stephen Deasey wrote:
On 12/12/06, Vlad Seryako
How do i install Zend optimizer?
Bernd Eidenschink wrote:
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 (wi
Does "ab" use keepalive (guess not...)?
NaviServer should start with all 10 threads from the beginning (at least with
the same number your Apache does pre-fork).
Turn all kind of stats off that may be on by default.
==
ns_section ns/
On 12/12/06, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
but only when acceptsize is
greater than 1, i tested with 5, results are exactly as php, around
1540-1560 req/sec, when i set acceptsize to 10, i constantly got results
1600-1610.
Did you try it such that it would accept all pending connect
>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
Actually i was wrong, when using .tcl file and caching enabled it works
faster than apache/php, not significantly but only when acceptsize is
greater than 1, i tested with 5, results are exactly as php, around
1540-1560 req/sec, when i set acceptsize to 10, i constantly got results
1600-1610.
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?
--
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?
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 syst
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 perfo
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
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
On 11.12.2006, at 16:56, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
I can sqeeze something from C maybe, but Tcl is a bottleneck
I understood that even for a index.html (which is a static file)
you get bad values. Therefore I suggested to short-circuit
layers and find out which one sucks.
On 11.12.2006, at 16:56, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
I can sqeeze something from C maybe, but Tcl is a bottleneck
I understood that even for a index.html (which is a static file)
you get bad values. Therefore I suggested to short-circuit
layers and find out which one sucks.
Tcl is definitely not th
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 re
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 is
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 i
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 ki
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 proc
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 do?
Hi Vlad,
> The results are somewhat bad, Naviserver is 2x slower on simple adp page
> comparing to similar PHP page.
can you replace the [ns_fmttime [ns_time... with one
[clock format [clock seconds] -format "%c"]
and did you set up similar configuration values in php.ini and config.tcl?
Like,
Reading recently about different tests, i decided to see how we stand
with PHP or Ruby.
The results are somewhat bad, Naviserver is 2x slower on simple adp page
comparing to similar PHP page.
Below are files:
test.php
---
Test list
test.adp
---
42 matches
Mail list logo
