Tavis Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3) You write:
> "WebWare uses a threaded model. While in some ways makes
> things simpler, it makes many things more complicated.
> Also, because of the Python global interpreter lock, if you
> have more than 1 CPU, WebWare won't actually use very much,
> if any of the additional CPUs since only one thread can run
> at a time. SkunkWeb uses a forking process model, which
> makes resource sharing more complicated in certain
> circumstances, it will fully utilize all available
> processors," ... "so SkunkWeb scales better."
>
> All of this is true, but the final statement is unproven.
> There are many factors involved and realistic benchmarks
> are needed before such a statement can be made.
In particular, in most instances the bottleneck will be on non-CPU
resources. In that situation resource pooling may be more important
than utilitizing multiple CPU's efficiently. Real performance will
likely have to take into account the efficiency of the database, file
system, and any other resources. Allowing those other resources to
scale may very well be more important to allowing the entire system to
scale, than is the CPU-scalability of one component (the respective
python framework).
Of course, that's all only a maybe -- real performance only is
meaningful in context, and only really by way of benchmarking.
Scaling is only a way of describing one attribute of that performance.
Perhaps the asymptotic performance of Skunkweb will outperform Webware
for load N (for large enough N). But down that road leads Mindcraft.
--
Ian Bicking Colorstudy Web Design
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.colorstudy.com
homepage: http://www.colorstudy.com/ianb
4769 N Talman Ave, Chicago, IL 60625 / (773) 275-7241
_______________________________________________
Webware-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
