Web Framework Benchmarks • Hacker News Board

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#201

Post by adrr » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 5:32 PM UTC

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.

Pretty sure passenger+nginx configuration is the most common rails deployment. Not the fastest but most common much like apache is the most common web server for php.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#202

Post by craigching » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 5:33 PM UTC

niteshade wrote: post #91

Can't believe you didn't include Zend in there :(

Just read this above:

"We've got Zend as a next target for PHP frameworks."

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#203

Post by lux » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 5:35 PM UTC

I'd love to see how PHP 5.4 compares. In my own app, I saw a noticeable speedup and RAM usage per request dropped by half.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#204

Post by Joeri » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 5:35 PM UTC

saym wrote: post #111

What I'd love to see paired with this data is a cost comparison. At what scale does performance of ruby/python/php become cost prohibitive? Twitter made the move from Ruby to Java some years back, did they ever post a comparison of their numbers before and after? Also, the difference between EC2 and local i7 hardware is glaringly obvious. At what scale does owning the server hardware become imperative? I know these q…

Since amazon always takes a cut it stands to reason that if you can fully load a server on a continuous basis, owning s cheaper than renting, regardless of how efficient EC2 is. You should only rent the peak load, not the base load.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#205

Post by mixmastamyk » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 5:36 PM UTC

Wasn't it agreed a long time ago that benchmarking against a VM was a bad idea?

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#206

Post by cloudwizard » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 5:38 PM UTC

It would be nice to see raw Python like you have raw PHP. I would expect Django to perform very poorly unless you optimize it's caching.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#207

Post by rozap » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 5:38 PM UTC

ubershmekel wrote: post #186

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.

There are a lot of variables and tweaking that can be done, and it would be nearly impossible to optimize each.

Similarly, I was wondering what sort of an effect connection pooling would have, as the out of the box django distribution doesn't do that. It really didn't perform too well in their tests.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#208

Post by chc » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 5:39 PM UTC

suyash wrote: post #188

Java (JVM) > JavaScript (Node.JS) > Ruby-Rails

If all you're doing is trying to serve JSON as fast as possible.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#209

Post by apendleton » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 5:42 PM UTC

vph wrote: post #62

This seems to be a nice benchmark. For the Python group, I would suggest two things: (1) include a lightweight framework like Bottle, and (2) Try pypy.

I'd be curious about a gevent-worker-driven server, too. Presumably they're running Django on either a thread- or processor-driven concurrency server, and gevent can show some pretty major gains. You could also do permutations of these: gevent on pypy (using pypycore), etc.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks

#210

Post by rozap » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 5:43 PM UTC

knappador wrote: post #112

Utter crap. "Sadly Django provides no connection pooling and in fact closes and re-opens a connection for every request. All the other tests use pooling." But it's free, open-source software and we provide asynchronous database connection pooling for Postgres SQL: https://github.com/iiilx/django-psycopg2-pool

Obviously if they optimized each and every one of these benchmarks we would see different results, but it would take a massive amount of time to learn the ins and outs of each framework to the point where you can do so effectively.

For one person do a benchmark over this many samples, they have to just go with the out of the box setup for each.