From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,3e9e2e402ed75bc3 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 X-Received: by 10.68.208.99 with SMTP id md3mr5325001pbc.6.1366697893432; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Path: bp1ni371pbd.1!nntp.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-mail Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:18:12 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?VGhvbWFzIEzDuGNrZQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130402 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: aws vs ruby rails or php? how much faster? References: <87vc7fm3lp.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <517627a4$0$32104$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Organization: SunSITE.dk - Supporting Open source NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.48.41.194 X-Trace: news.sunsite.dk DXC=^Q;1T3Nae81HcN9lh?6D[2YSB=nbEKnk;\B35ejE16c61GQX8;5?Cn7RED9SjB8:69IoAl0m>UN:11RDU8JnAel?]01T`Rm1cH8 X-Complaints-To: staff@sunsite.dk X-Received-Bytes: 3249 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: 2013-04-23T08:18:12+02:00 List-Id: On 04/22/2013 11:17 PM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote: > What kind of request was tested with this benchmark? Was this static > content delivery? Dynamic content? If this was dynamic content, then how > was it defined, as there is no way to have a PHP reference file > implemented in Ada (too much different)? > > That's not a surprise to me well designed Ada outperformed PHP and Ruby, > but I still would like more details. It was an in-house test we did to figure out how different frameworks performed. We tested both templating systems and purely static content. The differences were massive. Compared to Ruby, PHP and Python, AWS was so much faster, that testing it hardly made any sense. We didn't go out of our way to optimize anything. All frameworks were running in out of the box mode. The assumption was that a decent framework should be able to perform without forcing the user to learn about all sorts of arcane tricks to make it go faster. Also we assumed that X amount of time used to optimize a framework would result in fairly similar performance gains across the board. What we did not do was test things that relied on the performance of external systems, such as databases. We focused very narrowly on the straight-up performance of serving simple static and templated content over plain HTTP. This was mostly a benchmark of the frameworks ability to handle huge loads of HTTP requests. A few years ago I did a test[1] against node.js, mainly to prove that the threading model of AWS was not as inferior to the event model of node.js as many claimed. That test was equally simple and un-scientific, but it did get the point across. Please note that this test is very old and that node.js has since surpassed AWS. It still stands though that using a threaded webserver does not necessarily equal slow performance. It would be interesting to do some of these tests in a more controlled manner, and in an open forum where it is known what and how tests are done. Also we could learn more about AWS, and perhaps take a look at how we can make it go even faster. :o) [1] http://wiki.ada-dk.org/aws_vs_node.js -- Thomas Løcke | thomas@12boo.net | http://12boo.net