101–110 of 110 posts
The chat is still there in the corner of this post, with people typing nasty shit into it. Well have fun delving into programmatic censorship I guess. Or just take it out. If you take the former path and post about trying to fix it here then I'm sure you'll get a lot more free testing of your attempts to enforce civility through regex or whatever. Enjoy learning about the Scunthorpe problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That explains the opening line: >Sometimes the most irrelevant piece of a project becomes its absolute protagonist.
That looks more like a very bad overly-literal translation of Spanish 'protagonista absoluto'. AI generated English would not probably use a phrase which doesn't normally happen in English. 'Main focus' would be better in this situation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It pretends to be serious with 5 tables / charts: Django LiveView vs Phoenix LiveView: a real benchmark https://en.andros.dev/blog/80134668/django-liveview-vs-phoen...
How would you have approached it?
That's for a single node.
Then try multiple nodes / cluster - C1M, C2M, C10M, etc.
Also, all concurrent clients should send periodic pings / keepalives and do something useful (e.g. some CPU work, not just being idle).
Then you'll have to change your conclusion from:
> The data answers my original question: yes, Django LiveView holds up against Phoenix LiveView. In day-to-day operations they are practically equal.
to
> The data answers my original question: yes, under *toy* load Django LiveView holds up against Phoenix LiveView. For *toy* operations they are practically equal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, maximum concurrent clients being 50 is nothing and you're already seeing a large gap. That is the whole point of the BEAM - it scales well with concurrent stuff which is important with web in general and very important for LiveView.
50 is the hardware limit, not a personal choice. The code is free and accessible from the article itself. If you can run tests with more, I'd be happy to update the graphs and the conclusion.
this can't be true, If that hardware can run Django and Phoenix, it for sure can handle orders of magnitudes more concurrent clients than 50 even before you start tuning the OS and the runtime.
> Playwright headless Chromium
maybe you mean you're unable to generate more than 50 concurrent clients using Playwright+Chromium - but that's the wrong tool for loadtesting.
Loadtest should run from a different machine or cluster of machines/VMs. You can generate up to ~ 64K outgoing connections per IP address / alias. With 17 IP addresses/aliases you can generate up to C1M.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you have approached it?
Your "Concurrency" benchmark ends at 50 concurrent clients. Continue testing at C1K, C10K, C100K, C1M, C2M, etc. That's for a single node. Then try multiple nodes / cluster - C1M, C2M, C10M, etc. Also, all concurrent clients should send periodic pings / keepalives and do something useful (e.g. some CPU work, not just being idle). Then you'll have to change your conclusion from: > The data answers my original question…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
50 is the hardware limit, not a personal choice. The code is free and accessible from the article itself. If you can run tests with more, I'd be happy to update the graphs and the conclusion.
> 50 is the hardware limit this can't be true, If that hardware can run Django and Phoenix, it for sure can handle orders of magnitudes more concurrent clients than 50 even before you start tuning the OS and the runtime. > Playwright headless Chromium maybe you mean you're unable to generate more than 50 concurrent clients using Playwright+Chromium - but that's the wrong tool for loadtesting. Loadtest should run from…
The chat is still there in the corner of this post, with people typing nasty shit into it. Well have fun delving into programmatic censorship I guess. Or just take it out. If you take the former path and post about trying to fix it here then I'm sure you'll get a lot more free testing of your attempts to enforce civility through regex or whatever. Enjoy learning about the Scunthorpe problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I totally get that, but I also understand that the word "Nazi" has been redefined to mean something other than what it originally meant. This whole "redefinition" of language business has muddied the waters of trying to find literal humanity and basic decency. It is akin to redefining the word "hate" or "love". What you or I feel subjectively as hate or love in a given moment may be due to Vaseline on the lens of rea…
"What even is a Nazi" is a perfect example of a conversation I'm not interested in, because at the end of the day it's just an endless semantic treadmill. My definition is what matters to me. If you're a white supremacist, white separatist, antisemite, transphobic or homophobic, if you support fascist ideals and violence as a means to political ends, If you think Hitler did nothing wrong, if you think immigration and…
Not quite. Historically there is a very, very specific definition.
>My definition is what matters to me.
And there is the problem and why people cannot simply disagree anymore. It is "my platform" that matters to me, "my worldview only" that matters to me, "my money" that matters to me. That's all well and good, but there are also other people in the world and their definitions are gonna matter just as much to them as yours does to you (or money) (or platform). As to the rest of what you are saying here, I have some strong opinions on the subjects you raise, but now is neither the place nor time to indulge those. I will say that a person ought to go live among the people they feel the most sympathy for for awhile to make sure their ideals are true to reality. Most people don't do that.