On 12/12/2013 01:50 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Again, I'd be very interested in any help anyone is willing to offer on
comparing the execution of the latest Ur/Web benchmark against one of
the current winners for the 'plaintext' benchmark.
A sketch of that based on limited testing:
Vert.x is the current 'plaintext' winner and 3rd for 'json'. When I ran it
against Ur/Web I noticed some extraneous headers in Ur/Web's responses.
There was a duplicate 'Content-length' header (there was already a
'Content-Length' header) and a 'Content-script-type' header that was doing
nothing in that context.
I'm surprised that this change made such a big difference! Are clients
connecting from the same host where the server is running? I've only
tested in that setting, and maybe a bit of extra header noise is
substantially costlier when it actually needs to transit the network.
I've pushed changes to remove the duplicate/unnecessary headers you
point out (not quite using your patch), but (in localhost-to-localhost
testing) I don't see any clear performance change.
Removing these bumped 'json' performance from
`621613 requests in 10.00s, 123.90MB read`
to
`651695 requests in 10.00s, 93.85MB read`
. This puts Ur/Web quite close to JITted Vert.x at
`672104 requests in 10.00s, 97.43MB read`
.
On plaintext, I got Ur/Web at
`679445 requests in 10.00s, 84.88MB read`
and warmed-up Vert.x at
`715567 requests in 10.00s, 90.08MB read`
.
I imagine performance shouldn't be worse with the latest Ur/Web version,
so that leaves just a small puzzle of what accounts for Vert.x's
plaintext advantage. Thanks for running this comparison!
_______________________________________________
Ur mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
