> Did you "compile" the app before running the benchmarks?
yes
>
> Can you say more about "The most important thing: effects depend much
> on what you import. "
> imports should be cached and should not make a difference.
actually they don't, it is late, I was going to say "extend/include" not im
> I was going to say "extend/include" not import
and even this is not true as I see now for small layout
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"web2py-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this grou
1.0.2 is out. Go get it!
On 3/18/2010 11:57 AM, mdipierro wrote:
from https://launchpad.net/rocket the second gree button on the right
is Rocket-mono-xxx.zip
Unzip it. You get rocket.py. Move it into web2py/gluon/
web2py trunk already uses 1.0.1 so we have wait for Tim to post the
new one.
Ma
with 4x Rocket via Pound all is ok, with Rocket Solo I get 4703
addrunavail errors(in httperf this should never happened and it
renders this benchmarks useless) per 1 connections. I think this
might be about linux tweaking. Do ANYONE have some more experience
with setting sysctl environment for
just curious: why not using an existing (and fast) python web server like
tornado or fapws ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"web2py-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email
I've changed methodics a bit so I repeat my measurments for ROCKET at
the end of the file.
Methodics: Increase rate till errors show
@Massimo
as you can see quad cherrypy is faster than quad rocket. but when you
look closer to "SOLO" comparision you can see that both servers are
hitting SAME WALL
I've changed methodics a bit so I repeat my measurments for ROCKET at
the end of the file.
Methodics: Increase rate till errors show
@Massimo
as you can see quad cherrypy is faster than quad rocket. but when you
look closer to "SOLO" comparision you can see that both servers are
hitting SAME WALL
the last one is doubled rocket solo w/o a header..
--
Kuba
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"web2py-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
web2py+unsubscr...@googlegro
>Are these numbers consistent with Tim numbers? Could this be dues to a
>different memory usage?
1. Tim?
2. I have a lot of free memory while testing
I wrote email to an author of the blog entry about wsgi webserver
benchmarks - Nicholas Piël
http://nichol.as/benchmark-of-python-web-servers
In
I like Rocket too. I would like it to be better than Cherrypy
--
Kuba
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"web2py-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
web2py+unsubscr.
This is a different test than the one I presented. The test I presented
was run on Windows with one instance and tested with ApacheBench. I've
looked at httperf a little and it seems to be a more realistic test than
ApacheBench.
Due to the nature of how Rocket handles listening sockets, it i
Massimo, there is no possibility to keep both of two and select one?
anyway it's only a file isn't it?
Or maybe keep it as plugins to download?
alex
El 19/03/2010 14:24, mdipierro escribió:
Clearly we have conflicting benchmarks. I like Rocket because it is
cleaner but we need to go with the fa
Just looking over the httperf command, Kuba used --num-calls=1 This
would not be an accurate real-world test because it creates a new
connection for every request whereas most browsers span requests over
only a few connections. Nicholas Piel's test used --num-calls=10 for
testing HTTP/1.1 ser
>Just looking over the httperf command, Kuba used --num-calls=1 This would not
>be an accurate real-world test because it creates a new connection for every
>request whereas most >browsers span requests over only a few connections.
>Nicholas Piel's test used --num-calls=10 for testing HTTP/1.1
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:48 PM, mdipierro wrote:
> Can you also do me a favor? Can you benchmark sneaky.py (in web2py/
> gluon/)? In my tests it was faster than cherryby and I thought rocket
> was an improvement over it.
ok, as soon as I get back to my testing environment again
--
You received
In my own test, the difference (on Windows) between 1 and 10 yields a ~2.5x
increase in requests per second. I don't have a readily accessible Linux right
now. Kuba, please run these>numbers again with --num-calls=10.
my reality is a lot of concurrent connections with only one call.
I
>
> My point here was about the general web2py population rather than your
> "thing". No offense intended, but you have a special case. web2py handles
> web-services but that is not it's primary function.
yes, true, I was just explaining my httperf thinking
>I think Massimo wishes
> to primari
I would add a vote for Rocket.
A few thoughts about:
- rocket is developed inside our community, that means more control over it:
feedback, contributions etc
- still young, that means it will be optimized :) I believe that Tim and
others will do so
- one file
And even if cherrypy is only a bit f
One instance of each, with 10 calls in a connection as it is closer to
reallife scenario:
(numbers speak for themselves)
CHERRYPY:
r...@kubatron:/home/kuba/httperf-0.9.0/src# ./httperf --hog --server
192.168.0.1 --port=8000 ==uri=/vae/default/benchmark2
--num-conns=1 --num-calls=10
httperf -
Thank you Kuba. Would you mind re-running the 4x pound test like this also?
On 3/19/2010 3:09 PM, Kuba Kucharski wrote:
One instance of each, with 10 calls in a connection as it is closer to
reallife scenario:
(numbers speak for themselves)
CHERRYPY:
r...@kubatron:/home/kuba/httperf-0.9.0/sr
Summary:
First, I'll speak in the context of a single instance of Rocket. I'll talk
about pound in a bit.
ApacheBench, which I used to test Rocket, unfairly accentuates the benefits of
Rocket. httperf allows for a much fairer test. The httperf configuration that
Kuba used tested a non-stand
On Mar 20, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Timothy Farrell wrote:
> Vasile Ermicioi, put in a vote for Rocket to be included in web2py because
> I'm in the web2py community and there is still plenty of room for Rocket to
> be optimized (which I noted).
I like the idea of built-in servers as plugins (not form
ALL POWER I CAN GET FROM quad core Xeon @ 2.33GHz
ONLY SOME STABLE RECORDS HERE:
Request rate: 929.0 req/s (1.1 ms/req) QUAD CHERRYPY
Request rate: 877.6 req/s (1.1 ms/req) QUAD ROCKET
Request rate: 1478.0 req/s (0.7 ms/req) CHERRYPY SOLO
Request rate: 1544.2 req/s (0.6 ms/req) ROCKET SOLO
QUAD
> ach! I meant to say: web2py.com
nice one.
yes. stability and funcionality over speed. I just wanted to learn
where are the borders(and how to benchmark properly).
--
Kuba
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"web2py-users" group.
To post to
> I am assuming that in all your tests you did not use web2py. I
wrong assumption. I even published my model&controller at the
beginning of this thread.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"web2py-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to web...
you expect overhead from this? ;)
def benchmark2():
return dict(data="test")
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"web2py-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
web2py
Yes, I'll be here for the foreseeable future, but Yarko's philosophy is
much better. I've designed Rocket with a liberal MIT license and
clean-reading code so that it is easily maintainable. My best wishes
going to anyone trying to maintain Cherrypy. I've studied its code and
some aspects of
web2py could support both but the benefits get lost quickly. web2py is
designed to be simple, asking the user to pick which bundled web server
they would like to use is too much in my opinion.
Short or Tall?
Caf or Decaf?
Sugar?
Milk? (steamed?)
Cinnamon?
For here or To-go?
How would you like
On Mar 22, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Timothy Farrell wrote:
> web2py could support both but the benefits get lost quickly. web2py is
> designed to be simple, asking the user to pick which bundled web server they
> would like to use is too much in my opinion.
No need to ask; there'd be a silent default
I have no object to gradual rollover. One way that could satisfy from
all angles is to have HTTPS configurations default to use Rocket while
regular connections use Cherrypy. This would accomplish:
- revealing it to a smaller portion of the web2py user-ship at first
- remove the requirement o
*objection
Gosh Massimo, you're wearing off on me.
On 3/22/2010 9:49 AM, Timothy Farrell wrote:
I have no object to gradual rollover. One way that could satisfy from
all angles is to have HTTPS configurations default to use Rocket while
regular connections use Cherrypy. This would accomplish
I said, "I have no object to gradual rollover." but meant to say "I have
no objection to gradual rollover."
I mean that I'm misspelling words like you typically do. It was meant
in jest. ;-P
My mom was a stickler for proper pronunciation (being in Oklahoma you
can see how that might be impo
32 matches
Mail list logo
