A Page Load Time Comparison of Raspberry Pi 3 and 4 Web Servers
cheapskatesguide.org
A Page Load Time Comparison of Raspberry Pi 3 and 4 Web Servers
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: A Page Load Time Comparison of Raspberry Pi 3 and 4 Web Servers
#2Some basic plots would go a really long way to make the results more understandable at a glance.
Re: A Page Load Time Comparison of Raspberry Pi 3 and 4 Web Servers
#3Not really stressing the parts which substantially improved in the Pi 4, so not that surprising that the results aren't drastically better.
If you can use USB 3.0, saturate a GbE link or use lots of memory then the Pi 4 is a big upgrade.
Re: A Page Load Time Comparison of Raspberry Pi 3 and 4 Web Servers
#4It seems to me that this is mostly benchmarking the performance of the (low bandwidth, high latency) DSL uplink, not the Raspberry Pi.
"I have seen it dynamically compress and serve at a sustained 2.7 times per second a small webpage"
You should be able to get a lot more performance out of a Rasperry Pi 3 than that! It has similar capacity to the 2000-era workhorse Sun E450 https://fanf.livejournal.com/141066.html
Re: A Page Load Time Comparison of Raspberry Pi 3 and 4 Web Servers
#5Not a comment on the benchmarks themselves, but why not pre-compress the assets, and let the server simply pipe the data directly? Probably increase your throughput not insignificantly (given how prevalent compression support is in modern browsers).
Re: A Page Load Time Comparison of Raspberry Pi 3 and 4 Web Servers
#6Not really stressing the parts which substantially improved in the Pi 4, so not that surprising that the results aren't drastically better. If you can use USB 3.0, saturate a GbE link or use lots of memory then the Pi 4 is a big upgrade.
[deleted]
Re: A Page Load Time Comparison of Raspberry Pi 3 and 4 Web Servers
#7It seems to me that this is mostly benchmarking the performance of the (low bandwidth, high latency) DSL uplink, not the Raspberry Pi. " I have seen it dynamically compress and serve at a sustained 2.7 times per second a small webpage " You should be able to get a lot more performance out of a Rasperry Pi 3 than that! It has similar capacity to the 2000-era workhorse Sun E450 https://fanf.livejournal.com/141066.html
Yeah these numbers seem way off. I did some stress tests for my thesis and was able to get 20-90 requests per second served from a Raspberry Pi 2 running a PHP website with a PostgreSQL database, depending on the complexity of the page. An equivalent site programmed in Elixir fared even better. With plain Nginx serving a static HTML file, I could hit 1000 requests per second.
So it does seem the bottleneck here is the writer's Internet connection.
Re: A Page Load Time Comparison of Raspberry Pi 3 and 4 Web Servers
#8I do not think the author is testing Raspberry Pi at all here. Rather the capacity of the uplink. I have Pi and know it is capable of way more on local network.
Re: A Page Load Time Comparison of Raspberry Pi 3 and 4 Web Servers
#9> I have done this in part to prove that even individuals on tight budgets can enjoy the free speech benefits of running web servers at home.
I’d caution people against running any kind of controversial thing on their home network. All it takes is a few complaints against your ISP and it will disappear unless you have some business account, and even still.
Re: A Page Load Time Comparison of Raspberry Pi 3 and 4 Web Servers
#10> I have done this in part to prove that even individuals on tight budgets can enjoy the free speech benefits of running web servers at home. I’d caution people against running any kind of controversial thing on their home network. All it takes is a few complaints against your ISP and it will disappear unless you have some business account, and even still.
Running a .onion site over tor seems like it’d avoid this; and also still works when your ISP has you NAT’ed into a private address space - The tor server setup is pretty trivial (no harder than setting up nginx etc), the only downside (which is a pretty big downside) is that it requires extra effort from users :(