51–60 of 66 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If each framework use different DB, then all results with DB queries are useless (for me). Very frustrating. Really, any framework with Redis will have HUGE allowance
You can filter by DB, and most of the frameworks (including the Dart ones) are run against multiple DBs.
The chart says Play Framework didn't complete but looking at the output, the logs say it did. https://github.com/TechEmpower/TFB-Round-10/blob/master/peak... What am I missing?
Here's the corresponding error from the log in Play[2]. Not sure what else it could be...
[1] https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast...
[2] https://github.com/playframework/playframework/blob/2.2.x/fr...
Since the "peak" hardware is a dual E5-2660v2 thats 32 threads, so a c3.8xlarge would be a much more comparable instance.
Every time I'm struck by how slow the big PHP frameworks are compared to raw PHP. Either nobody cares about making those tests perform better, or something is very wrong in the architecture of those frameworks. I expect the cause is that too much code is being loaded for every request. PHP tears down and rebuilds the world for every request, and the popular frameworks load a lot of code and instantiate a lot of objec…
And because of the share-nothing architecture it scales like a mofo before we have to start jumping through hoops (and 99% of us never reach that scale).
The lack of raw speed is a minor inconvenience that's easily fixed in practice.
Also, I doubt big PHP frameworks are the only ones with a disadvantage that only shows up in these kind of benchmarks. It's like testing cars solely for straight line speed.
There's something I don't understand in these comments. Why is everyone interested in language comparisons instead of the huge difference between EC2 and bare metal?
Since the "peak" hardware is a dual E5-2660v2 thats 32 threads, so a c3.8xlarge would be a much more comparable instance.
We aren't trying to measure each hardware set as apples-to-apples, but rather give the reader an idea of how performance characteristics for a chosen stack are affected by hosting environment. Specifically, we wanted the middle-of-the-road EC2 instances versus the extremely high-end Peak option to illustrate that difference.
I've noticed a weird trend where amazon created various slices of instance types a long time ago, and people have mentally gotten used to using larger ones far slower than moores law adds cores. So people will refer to something with 2 cores as "middle-of-the-road" and 32 as "extremely high-end" when in my brain thats "a cell phone" and "a 2 year old server".
There's something I don't understand in these comments. Why is everyone interested in language comparisons instead of the huge difference between EC2 and bare metal?
Got to agree. Bare Metal performance isn't appreciated enough. I know a few companies that run fine with a mixed Metal/AWS combo. Metal handles 80% of the workload, and if that for some reason fails, EC2 instances are fired up to take over until it is fixed. This setup doesn't work for every scenario, but it is something to take into consideration.