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

181–190 of 415 posts

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#181

Post by josh-j »

markokocic wrote: post #143
papsosouid wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Given the amount of interest in Haskell I see more people making uninformed "haskell sucks" posts than expressing interest in it. >and Yesod Really? Yesod is the anti-haskell haskell framework.

> Really? Yesod is the anti-haskell haskell framework. Can you please elaborate. Being interested in Haskel web development and trying to choose web framework makes me wish for more information.

I'm guessing, but I think it's because yesod uses a lot of magic such as templates and the like. The other frameworks like Snap use more idiomatic Haskell.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#185

Post by marcamillion »

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…

Not quite sure I understand your point re: the cost of the frameworks, above the bare standard library.

Do you mind breaking it down for me a bit please?

Cost in dollars or cost in hardware utilization or some other cost?

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#186

Post by ubershmekel »

bhauer wrote: post #2

I worked with Pat (pfalls) on this effort. He pulled the benchmarks together and built the script to automate the tests. We aimed to deploy each framework/platform according to best-practices for a production environment and then stress test common operations: JSON serialization of objects and database connectivity. We were surprised by the wide spectrum of performance we observed and hope that this interesting to yo…

I'm no expert, but I think certain languages/frameworks are better suited to be behind certain servers when high concurrency is tested. E.g. from http://nichol.as/benchmark-of-python-web-servers it seems django would be better served behind gevent.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#187

Post by goodwink »

xal wrote: post #135

What kind of server did you guys use for your rails test? Thin, Puma, Unicorn? Are you sure you ran it in production environment? Update: Looks like passenger in development mode. Good job you benchmarked a web server that no one uses wile reloading all code between requests. Update2: Ok it seems to run in production mode but still, passenger is not an idiomatic choice.

Passenger wouldn't be my choice personally, but I don't think there's anything non "idiomatic" about it. Engine Yard, Cloud 66, etc. use passenger in their PaaS configs, it's been very popular (on the wane now, but still), etc. It seems fair enough and the differences aren't going to be the sort of order of magnitude change which would really matter on this sort of thing regardless.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#189

Post by bascule »

bhauer wrote: post #2

I worked with Pat (pfalls) on this effort. He pulled the benchmarks together and built the script to automate the tests. We aimed to deploy each framework/platform according to best-practices for a production environment and then stress test common operations: JSON serialization of objects and database connectivity. We were surprised by the wide spectrum of performance we observed and hope that this interesting to yo…

Since these tests seem to be all about JSON serialization, it would've been interesting to see the tests with rails-api instead of the standard Rails stack:

https://github.com/rails-api/rails-api

What webserver were you using on JRuby? Was it Trinidad? Did you try Jetpack?

Post reply on HN