English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] The closing gap (warning: long, inflammatory rant)
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ 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.


Well I'll say that it's hyperbole to be on the safe side, but you might want to
look at this:


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!