Webware for Python

Ok, just recovered from a Windows re-install ... luckily the OpenBSD box is
untouched. Anywho, I just tried out Jay's latest changes to
AsyncThreadedAppServer, and it's now easily on par with the regular
ThreadedAppServer .. so if it scales better, I'd say use it. This is only
speaking for OpenBSD, of course, but there's a good chance FreeBSD/NetBSD will
behave in the same manner. Anyone tested on NT yet?

-- 
Dan Green

Re: [Webware-discuss] Arg.. From: Chuck Esterbrook <echuck@mi...> - 2000-08-31 17:54 I haven't benchmarked them lately on Windows 98, but I can do that. I forget if Geoff commented on this before. If not, maybe he can benchmark these too? Is there any chance people can post actual numbers? -Chuck At 01:32 PM 8/31/00 -0400, Dan Green wrote: >Ok, just recovered from a Windows re-install ... luckily the OpenBSD box is >untouched. Anywho, I just tried out Jay's latest changes to >AsyncThreadedAppServer, and it's now easily on par with the regular >ThreadedAppServer .. so if it scales better, I'd say use it. This is only >speaking for OpenBSD, of course, but there's a good chance FreeBSD/NetBSD will >behave in the same manner. Anyone tested on NT yet? > >-- >Dan Green >_______________________________________________ >Webware-discuss mailing list >Webware-discuss@... >http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/webware-discuss

Re: [Webware-discuss] Arg.. From: Geoff Talvola <gtalvola@na...> - 2000-08-31 18:39 Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > I haven't benchmarked them lately on Windows 98, but I can do that. > > I forget if Geoff commented on this before. If not, maybe he can benchmark > these too? > > Is there any chance people can post actual numbers? > > -Chuck I just tried using stress.py on the new AsyncThreadedAppServer on NT (running the app server on the same machine as stress.py). Here are my results: AsyncThreadedAppServer: sequential requests: 66.58 pages/sec 5 parallel requests: 57.13 pages/sec 50 parallel requests: 57.39 pages/sec varying from 5 to 50 parallel requests: 58.47 pages/sec ThreadedAppServer: sequential requests: 78.88 pages/sec 5 parallel requests: 67.84 pages/sec 50 parallel requests: 66.48 pages/sec varying from 5 to 50 parallel requests: 68.58 pages/sec They are both plenty fast for my needs, but ThreadedAppServer seems slightly faster under all conditions tested here. Not that you'd notice the difference as a user. (Before the fixes, AsyncThreadedAppServer was noticeably _much_ slower than ThreadedAppServer.) -- - Geoff Talvola Parlance Corporation gtalvola@...

Re: [Webware-discuss] Arg.. From: Jay Love <jslove@mi...> - 2000-08-31 23:33 Thanks for testing this out. Now, the original reason I wrote that was because when I was stressing AppServer very heavily, Threaded would flake out. Would you guys try it with, say 100 to 200 simultaneous requests? Thanks- Jay Geoff Talvola wrote: > > Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > > > I haven't benchmarked them lately on Windows 98, but I can do that. > > > > I forget if Geoff commented on this before. If not, maybe he can benchmark > > these too? > > > > Is there any chance people can post actual numbers? > > > > -Chuck > > I just tried using stress.py on the new AsyncThreadedAppServer on NT (running the > app server on the same machine as stress.py). Here are my results: > > AsyncThreadedAppServer: > > sequential requests: 66.58 pages/sec > 5 parallel requests: 57.13 pages/sec > 50 parallel requests: 57.39 pages/sec > varying from 5 to 50 parallel requests: 58.47 pages/sec > > ThreadedAppServer: > > sequential requests: 78.88 pages/sec > 5 parallel requests: 67.84 pages/sec > 50 parallel requests: 66.48 pages/sec > varying from 5 to 50 parallel requests: 68.58 pages/sec > > They are both plenty fast for my needs, but ThreadedAppServer seems slightly faster > under all conditions tested here. Not that you'd notice the difference as a user. > (Before the fixes, AsyncThreadedAppServer was noticeably _much_ slower than > ThreadedAppServer.) > > -- > > - Geoff Talvola > Parlance Corporation > gtalvola@... > > _______________________________________________ > Webware-discuss mailing list > Webware-discuss@... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/webware-discuss

Re: [Webware-discuss] Arg.. From: Geoff Talvola <gtalvola@na...> - 2000-09-01 13:02 Jay Love wrote: > Thanks for testing this out. > > Now, the original reason I wrote that was because when I was stressing > AppServer very heavily, Threaded would flake out. Would you guys try it > with, say 100 to 200 simultaneous requests? > > Thanks- Jay On NT, even with 500 simultaneous requests, ThreadedAppServer works fine and is still slightly faster than AsyncThreadedAppServer (7% faster to be precise). -- - Geoff Talvola Parlance Corporation gtalvola@...

1 message has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.