Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Web Framework Benchmarks

techempower.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 415 posts

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#41

Post by goodwink »

jondot wrote: post #26
goodwink wrote: post #21

One of the most interesting things this comparison brings out to me is not so much the differences between the various frameworks (although the differences between options on the same platform is definitely very useful information), but also the issue that few of us seem to think about these days: the cost of any of the frameworks above the bare standard library of the platform its hosted on. Theres a consistant, con…

I think this is a much needed and excellent point to make. Just take a look at how Go dips down when using Webgo.

I think Go is almost the ideal example here, you're right. Go provides a pretty rich "standard library" for writing web serving stuff so it's a good place where you could really imagine writing your performance critical stuff just on the base platform even if you use something like Webgo for the rest of your app.

Some of the other platforms are much less amenable to that since the standard primitives the platform exposes are very primitive indeed (servlets api, rack api, etc.). Perhaps there's some value in looking at how your favorite framework stacks up against its raw platform and trying to contribute some optimizations to close the gap a bit.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#42

Post by cacois »

goodwink wrote: post #21

One of the most interesting things this comparison brings out to me is not so much the differences between the various frameworks (although the differences between options on the same platform is definitely very useful information), but also the issue that few of us seem to think about these days: the cost of any of the frameworks above the bare standard library of the platform its hosted on. Theres a consistant, con…

I'd love to see your framework optimization index. Honestly, all of this would be a wonderful thing to automate and put in a web app - a readily-accessible, up-to-date measure of the current performance of the state of the art in languages and frameworks. I bet it would really change some of the technology choices made.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#43

Post by bhauer »

asadkn wrote: post #22
Kiro wrote: post #6

So this means I should stop using CakePHP?

Not really. Take this benchmark with a grain of salt unless they benchmark it again with APC at minimum. Nobody serious about a web app would run a PHP app without APC. Similarly, relatively modern deployment standards (not really cutting-edge) like nginx and php-fpm OR apache 2.4 with worker mpm + php-fpm should be added to the mix.

Asadkn, we'll try to get things revised based on your feedback. Admittedly, we have some learning to do with tuning production PHP environments.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#44

Post by pfalls »

bhauer wrote: post #13
akmiller wrote: post #10

I'd like to see how .Net MVC would compare. I realize you'd have to spin it up on a Windows EC2 instance and there would definitely be some variance in the performance of that box vs. the nix EC2 instances but I'd still be interested in seeing how it fares in comparison.

We agree. We aim to provide a .NET MVC test soon. We did briefly test that on our i7 hardware and if memory serves me correctly, it clocked in at around the position as Spring. But don't quote me on that! :)

I think you're about right on that one. Of course we were running on mono.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#45

Post by jondot »

atonse wrote: post #28

I'm torn about this. On the one hand, while I've known my framework of choice (Rails) is slow, I didn't know how much slower it could be in the grand scheme of things. But on the other hand, I'm more shocked by the difference between EC2 and dedicated hardware (10x improvement with rails), and even 89 requests per second (20 query benchmark on EC2) is still a decent amount of traffic. (Plus this doesn't count any opt…

Don't be too disappointed about Rails.

As a rule I like to divide this world into "Featureless" and "Featurefull" products.

When you use Rails, you're aiming to pile up features. You want to react to Product managers, to users, you want to work fast and satisfy the needs of customers - or else you won't have anyone to build to.

In this reality, the fact that you're doing 20req/s is OK. In fact, I'm betting that even when you take Go or Node.js - pile up all of the infrastructure and features that exist in Rails, and pile up a ton of your code - buggy and not buggy - you'll get around the same kind of satisfaction index from users.

This is because your product can be perceived as slow even though your servers are blazingly fast.

On the other side of the spectrum there are "Featureless" products. These are infrastructural products. A logging service. An analytics service. A full-text search. A classification and recommendation engine.

These you don't want to build in Rails. I'm sure you haven't even considered it. These you want to build with one of the top-notch libraries that this survey indicate.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#46

Post by goodwink »

bhauer wrote: post #36
atonse wrote: post #28

I'm torn about this. On the one hand, while I've known my framework of choice (Rails) is slow, I didn't know how much slower it could be in the grand scheme of things. But on the other hand, I'm more shocked by the difference between EC2 and dedicated hardware (10x improvement with rails), and even 89 requests per second (20 query benchmark on EC2) is still a decent amount of traffic. (Plus this doesn't count any opt…

Thanks for the feedback, atonse! We had a great amount of fun putting this together, as you can imagine. I agree, a remarkable take-away for us was how dramatically our i7s excelled over the EC2 instances. Admittedly, those were EC2 Large and not Extra Large instances. A previous draft of this blog entry had a long-winded analysis of hosting costs--discussing the balance between ease and peace-of-mind provided by som…

Were these the new 2nd-generation large instances or the original ones?

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#49

Post by bhauer »

goodwink wrote: post #46
bhauer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the feedback, atonse! We had a great amount of fun putting this together, as you can imagine. I agree, a remarkable take-away for us was how dramatically our i7s excelled over the EC2 instances. Admittedly, those were EC2 Large and not Extra Large instances. A previous draft of this blog entry had a long-winded analysis of hosting costs--discussing the balance between ease and peace-of-mind provided by som…

Were these the new 2nd-generation large instances or the original ones?

They were m1.large.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#50

Post by Throwadev »

adad95 wrote: post #33

I Will love to see dotNet (C#) incluid in this test. Asp.Net WebAPI (Synchronous and Asycnhrounous) Asp.Net MVC (Synchronous and Asycnhrounous) Asp.Net HTTP Handlers (Synchronous and Asycnhrounous)

Also ServiceStack vs ASP.NET MVC vs NancyFX vs Fubu, Mono vs IIS/windows, default serializer vs JSON.NET vs ServiceStack's, etc. There are tons of variations that could be done.
Post reply on HN