Benchmarking Tornado vs. Twisted Web vs. Tornado on Twisted vs. Unicorn

#1

Post by acangiano » Sun, Sep 13, 2009, 1:06 PM UTC

Benchmarking Tornado vs. Twisted Web vs. Tornado on Twisted vs. Unicorn
antoniocangiano.com

Re: Benchmarking Tornado vs. Twisted Web vs. Tornado on Twisted vs. Unicorn

#2

Post by viraptor » Sun, Sep 13, 2009, 1:50 PM UTC

It would be interesting if Twisted people actually looked at the problem and tried to tune their framework to match the performance... Since someone from that team (afaik) already argued that Twisted can be just as fast, they should be inclined to prove it.

Re: Benchmarking Tornado vs. Twisted Web vs. Tornado on Twisted vs. Unicorn

#3

Post by xal » Sun, Sep 13, 2009, 2:12 PM UTC

Testing against unicorn makes no sense whatsoever. Test against eventmachine-httpserver, that's similar in scope and featureset.

Re: Benchmarking Tornado vs. Twisted Web vs. Tornado on Twisted vs. Unicorn

#4

Post by acangiano » Sun, Sep 13, 2009, 2:35 PM UTC

xal wrote: post #3

Testing against unicorn makes no sense whatsoever. Test against eventmachine-httpserver, that's similar in scope and featureset.

I agree that it could have been left out as it's a different beast. But I wanted to compare Tornado and the others with one of the fastest (and increasingly popular) web server from the Ruby world.

PS: I'm about to update my post with the results from Thin and evma_httpserver.

PS2: My post has been updated.

Re: Benchmarking Tornado vs. Twisted Web vs. Tornado on Twisted vs. Unicorn

#5

Post by adamt » Sun, Sep 13, 2009, 2:53 PM UTC

Be careful about reading to much into this - ApacheBench is a very limited (if convenient) benchmark that isn't very realistic of real world load.

Re: Benchmarking Tornado vs. Twisted Web vs. Tornado on Twisted vs. Unicorn

#6

Post by boucher » Sun, Sep 13, 2009, 3:16 PM UTC

adamt wrote: post #5

Be careful about reading to much into this - ApacheBench is a very limited (if convenient) benchmark that isn't very realistic of real world load.

3-4x the number of simultaneous connections (ignoring the actual performance gains) strikes me as pretty significant, even under a limited test.

Re: Benchmarking Tornado vs. Twisted Web vs. Tornado on Twisted vs. Unicorn

#7

Post by erlanger » Sun, Sep 13, 2009, 4:22 PM UTC

People, please stop benchmarking with ab, it does not produce accurate results. All benchmarking of this sort should be done with Siege. It's easier to use too.

Re: Benchmarking Tornado vs. Twisted Web vs. Tornado on Twisted vs. Unicorn

#8

Post by moe » Sun, Sep 13, 2009, 4:35 PM UTC

boucher wrote: post #6

adamt wrote: post #5

Be careful about reading to much into this - ApacheBench is a very limited (if convenient) benchmark that isn't very realistic of real world load.

3-4x the number of simultaneous connections (ignoring the actual performance gains) strikes me as pretty significant, even under a limited test.

The test is not just limited, it's completely meaningless because the portion of the stack he tested is not going to be your bottleneck in any real application. When will people learn that 'ab' is not a suitable benchmark for application servers...

Re: Benchmarking Tornado vs. Twisted Web vs. Tornado on Twisted vs. Unicorn

#9

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Sep 13, 2009, 4:48 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Benchmarking Tornado vs. Twisted Web vs. Tornado on Twisted vs. Unicorn

#10

Post by acangiano » Sun, Sep 13, 2009, 4:53 PM UTC

acangiano wrote: post #4

xal wrote: post #3

Testing against unicorn makes no sense whatsoever. Test against eventmachine-httpserver, that's similar in scope and featureset.

I agree that it could have been left out as it's a different beast. But I wanted to compare Tornado and the others with one of the fastest (and increasingly popular) web server from the Ruby world. PS: I'm about to update my post with the results from Thin and evma_httpserver. PS2: My post has been updated.

I decided to keep asynchronous, non-blocking web servers only. So I removed both Unicorn and Thin.