Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] The closing gap (warning: long, inflammatory rant)
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2008-04-21 (15:57) |
From: | Berke Durak <berke.durak@e...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] The closing gap (warning: long, inflammatory rant) |
Dario Teixeira wrote: > Hi, > >> Now data center owners love Ruby-based apps, since you need 60 servers to do >> 300 requests/second. > > Is this hyperbole or hard numbers? Since I finally managed to use natdynlink > on an AMD64 machine (see Alain Frisch's today's message to this list), I ran > some simple benchmarks on a dummy Ocsigen application generating dynamic pages. > Hello, Well I'll say that it's hyperbole to be on the safe side, but you might want to look at this: http://highscalability.com/friends-sale-architecture-300-million-page-view-month-facebook-ror-app Some people say that it's a Rails problem but why has Ruby the place it has on the shootout? Can't they indulge in some malloc+pointer-arithmetic tricks like our Haskell brothers :) ? > The results were more than good enough for my purposes, though I can't really > compare them with other languages/frameworks: > > http://nleyten.com/2008/04/21/simple-benchmarks-on-the-ocsigen-server.aspx Well these are pretty good numbers IMHO. My own monadically threaded homegrown "framework" tops at about 300 reqs/seq at ronchonneuse.com (native code, a Dedibox on a VIA Esther at 2GHz), and it goes thru Lighttpd via SCGI (FastCGI should improve it but it's not worth the hassle for now.) > Could Ocsigen be a killer app for Ocaml? Should we think of setting up > a simple "web framework shootout"? (Though personally I think the > advantages of Ocsigen go way beyond speed). Could be, but not in bytecode. Let's place our hopes in natdynlink! -- Berke DURAK