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

Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

techempower.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 241 posts

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#21

Post by cmsimike »

TylerE wrote: post #15
pfalls wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go 1.1 is very high on our list, we'd love to get that into the tests as soon as we can. Of course, anyone in the Go community is welcome to issue a pull request that updated the version to 1.1. Edit: Just saw this pull request come in, so expect some Go 1.1 love in the next round. https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/pull/64

Don't think you'd need to change any code, just pull mercurial tip and recompile go and the app.

Is 1.1 production ready? I'd feel weird about incorporating something still in a "beta" phase though.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#23

Post by pfalls »

nlh wrote: post #17

This is an awesome project, and thank you for the follow-up. In particular, this is awesome because it's introduced me to some new frameworks that I hadn't even heard of (ie vert.x) that seem extremely interesting. Keep it up and many thanks for this contribution!

Thanks for the kind words. Glad to hear that you've been introduced to some new frameworks, we feel the same way, and we're excited to see what else the community has up it's sleeve.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#24

Post by pfalls »

kevinburke wrote: post #22

It seems like you're still using Mongo DB as the datastore for some languages and Mysql as the datastore for other languages. This seems like it would bias the results.

The only framework that uses MongoDB exclusively is the vert.x test, the nodejs tests have tests for both MySQL and MongoDB

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#25

Post by coolsunglasses »

pfalls wrote: post #10
coolsunglasses wrote: post #5

Go 1.1 beta is up, really need to get some results with tip instead of 1.0.3.

Go 1.1 is very high on our list, we'd love to get that into the tests as soon as we can. Of course, anyone in the Go community is welcome to issue a pull request that updated the version to 1.1. Edit: Just saw this pull request come in, so expect some Go 1.1 love in the next round. https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/pull/64

Pull request submitted, (I'm the bear with cool sunglasses).

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#26

Post by pfalls »

redtuesday wrote: post #7

Thanks for the tests. Especially the latency is interesting. I cant't wait for the next round, when the updates of the last two days are included (elli, grizzly, play-java, play-scala, snap etc).

Since we moved to a different benchmarking tool for round 2, we had to re-run all the tests, which is a time consuming process, especially on the EC2 hardware. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, we have an easier time running and processing results for individual tests. So stay tuned!

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#27

Post by coolsunglasses »

voidlogic wrote: post #20
TylerE wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think you'd need to change any code, just pull mercurial tip and recompile go and the app.

cd go/src hg pull hg update tip ./all.bash

That's not how their installer works. I submitted a PR to pull the 1.1 beta tarball.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#28

Post by krg »

e12e wrote: post #11
bhauer wrote: post #2

This is our first follow up to last week's web framework benchmarks. Since last week, we have received dozens of comments, thoughts, questions, criticisms, and most importantly pull requests. This post shows data collected from a second run on EC2 and i7 hardware that started on Tuesday of this week. A third round with even more community contribution is already underway. Thanks especially to those who have contribut…

It's great that you're doing this, and listing stuff like standard deviation in the tables -- but I'd say your focus/interpretation of the data isn't quite right. At least provide the option to sort by standard deviation -- as that might well be more interesting than requests/second? Maybe I'm just being mean because I was reminded of this essay by Zed Shaw earlier today (I was looking for his alluded rant on CC lice…

Note that the results data is available as JSON if you want to play with different sorting yourself: https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast...

As pfalls said, we're definitely open to different ways to present the data. More sorting would be cool.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#29

Post by coolsunglasses »

cmsimike wrote: post #21
TylerE wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think you'd need to change any code, just pull mercurial tip and recompile go and the app.

Is 1.1 production ready? I'd feel weird about incorporating something still in a "beta" phase though.

People have been working off of tip for months.

Re: Web Framework Benchmarks Round 2

#30

Post by diminish »

pfalls wrote: post #23
nlh wrote: post #17

This is an awesome project, and thank you for the follow-up. In particular, this is awesome because it's introduced me to some new frameworks that I hadn't even heard of (ie vert.x) that seem extremely interesting. Keep it up and many thanks for this contribution!

Thanks for the kind words. Glad to hear that you've been introduced to some new frameworks, we feel the same way, and we're excited to see what else the community has up it's sleeve.

Pls could u include some C/C++ web frameworks... comparison with Java, could be interesting..
Post reply on HN