On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Igor Katson wrote:
> On 10/08/2011 03:35 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Igor Katson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/08/2011 02:50 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Andy wrote:
>
> 15 times
On 10/08/2011 03:35 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Igor Katson wrote:
On 10/08/2011 02:50 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Andywrote:
15 times more memory? That's a lot.
Interestingly Quora reported that their PyPy processes wer
On 10/08/2011 01:49 PM, Serhat Sevki Dincer wrote:
My favorite pypy version is 46768: It passes its own tests + It runs
Django 1.3.1 :P
Igor, did you try this version by any chance?
Well, mine versions run without problems, and I've tried the latest
trunk, just this memory bug is present. So I
On Oct 07, 2011, at 11:50 , Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Igor Katson wrote:
>> [...]
>> Though, the need to load the page 500 times after each server reload is not
>> comfortable.
> [...]
> I've heard people using gunicorn. Maybe this is a good try? Loading
> the p
My favorite pypy version is 46768: It passes its own tests + It runs Django
1.3.1 :P
Igor, did you try this version by any chance?
___
pypy-dev mailing list
pypy-dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Andy wrote:
> What causes Tornado's memory usage to grow constantly? Is it a bug in PyPy
> or Tornado?
PyPy. It does get freed at *some point*, but some point is too far in
the future. It was about objects like sockets and hashes not
accounting for memory usage by
What causes Tornado's memory usage to grow constantly? Is it a bug in PyPy or
Tornado?
It *might* be the same thing as with tornado where memory usage grows
constantly. Justin peel is working on it and it'll be in 1.7 some time
soon (it does not have to though,
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Igor Katson wrote:
> On 10/08/2011 02:50 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Andy wrote:
>>>
>>> 15 times more memory? That's a lot.
>>> Interestingly Quora reported that their PyPy processes were only 50%
>>> larger
>>> than CPytho
On 10/08/2011 02:50 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Andy wrote:
15 times more memory? That's a lot.
Interestingly Quora reported that their PyPy processes were only 50% larger
than CPython ones:
http://www.quora.com/Quora-Infrastructure/Did-Quoras-switch-to-PyPy-r
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Andy wrote:
> 15 times more memory? That's a lot.
> Interestingly Quora reported that their PyPy processes were only 50% larger
> than CPython ones:
> http://www.quora.com/Quora-Infrastructure/Did-Quoras-switch-to-PyPy-result-in-increased-memory-consumption
>
> "ou
ki
Cc: pypy-dev@python.org
Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [pypy-dev] Benchmarking PyPy performance on real-world Django app
Tried gunicorn, nothing special, the speed is roughly the same.
Unfortunately, I noticed that a single instance takes way to much memory
to bring that to
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Leonardo Santagada wrote:
> No one complains about it, but Solr does do a warmup phase while
> bringing the server up before starting to serve real requests.
FWIW, this is something I often do with Flask and Werkzeug (on PyPy and
gunicorn) after restarting - pass
On 10/07/2011 08:50 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Igor Katson wrote:
When I first started benchmarking one of my Django sites,
http://trip-travel.ru/ (using postgres driver pypq),
I was disappointed by the results. PyPy was visually much slower than
cPython (I ju
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Ian P. Cooke wrote:
>
> On Oct 07, 2011, at 11:50 , Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Igor Katson wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Though, the need to load the page 500 times after each server reload is not
>
> comfortable.
>
> [...]
> I've heard pe
No one complains about it, but Solr does do a warmup phase while
bringing the server up before starting to serve real requests.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>
>
> On 7 October 2011 18:08, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Michael Foord wrote
On 7 October 2011 18:08, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7 October 2011 17:50, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Igor Katson
> wrote:
> >> > When I first started benchmarking one of my Django site
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>
>
> On 7 October 2011 17:50, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Igor Katson wrote:
>> > When I first started benchmarking one of my Django sites,
>> > http://trip-travel.ru/ (using postgres driver pypq),
>> > I w
On 7 October 2011 17:50, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Igor Katson wrote:
> > When I first started benchmarking one of my Django sites,
> > http://trip-travel.ru/ (using postgres driver pypq),
> > I was disappointed by the results. PyPy was visually much slower than
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Igor Katson wrote:
> When I first started benchmarking one of my Django sites,
> http://trip-travel.ru/ (using postgres driver pypq),
> I was disappointed by the results. PyPy was visually much slower than
> cPython (I just looked at how the site loads in the browse
When I first started benchmarking one of my Django sites,
http://trip-travel.ru/ (using postgres driver pypq),
I was disappointed by the results. PyPy was visually much slower than
cPython (I just looked at how the site loads in the browser)
But today I got some incredible results, I finally ma
20 matches
Mail list logo
