I'm surprised you don't get any difference with the new version. This is very surprising for me. Here are results from my tiny Macbook Air:
% ab -c 20 -n 10000 http://localhost:8000/ This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 655654 $> Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/ Licensed to The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/ Benchmarking localhost (be patient) Completed 1000 requests Completed 2000 requests Completed 3000 requests Completed 4000 requests Completed 5000 requests Completed 6000 requests Completed 7000 requests Completed 8000 requests Completed 9000 requests Completed 10000 requests Finished 10000 requests Server Software: Racket Server Hostname: localhost Server Port: 8000 Document Path: / Document Length: 8630 bytes Concurrency Level: 20 Time taken for tests: 14.501 seconds Complete requests: 10000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 88090000 bytes HTML transferred: 86300000 bytes Requests per second: 689.59 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 29.003 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 1.450 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 5932.24 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 0 0.1 0 3 Processing: 2 29 16.0 26 213 Waiting: 1 21 14.3 19 198 Total: 2 29 16.0 26 213 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 26 66% 30 75% 34 80% 36 90% 43 95% 51 98% 65 99% 84 100% 213 (longest request) with this server: #lang racket/base (require racket/list web-server/servlet-env web-server/http) (serve/servlet (λ (req) (response 200 #"Okay" (current-seconds) TEXT/HTML-MIME-TYPE empty (λ (op) (for ([i (in-range 8630)]) (write-byte 42 op))))) #:port 8000 #:command-line? #t #:servlet-regexp #rx"") that serves dynamic content of similar size to what your Perl example does. Jay On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:03 PM, <jos...@anwu.org> wrote: > > Racketeers, > > I'm new to the language, and loving it. I'm having trouble getting good > performance out of my little toy web app, however. > > I wrote this fake billing app to play with some new languages (like Racket) > and some other webdev ideas I've had (like client-side > templating with jQuery and mustache). As such, I have the same JSON api > written in Perl, Ruby, and Racket (working on node.js > and Haskell). Perl runs under Dancer and Starman, ruby under Sinatra and > Unicorn, and Racket under nohup and its own included webserver. > All are running on the same machine. Each connects to a postgres db, > executes some queries from a config file, and returns JSON > to the client. > > I've been running apache bench against all three, and the performance of > Racket vs Perl and Ruby has been... disheartening. I > compiled the racket code with 'raco exe' before running it, but Perl and Ruby > both blow it away. The racket executable also > seems to grab and hold a lot of memory, even though I told it to be > stateless. It also tends to have failures. > > ab -c 20 -n 10000 <uri> > > > Perl: > > Concurrency Level: 20 > Time taken for tests: 86.100 seconds > Complete requests: 10000 > Failed requests: 0 > Write errors: 0 > Total transferred: 88150000 bytes > HTML transferred: 86300000 bytes > Requests per second: 116.14 [#/sec] (mean) > Time per request: 172.199 [ms] (mean) > Time per request: 8.610 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) > Transfer rate: 999.82 [Kbytes/sec] received > > > Ruby: > > Concurrency Level: 20 > Time taken for tests: 102.914 seconds > Complete requests: 10000 > Failed requests: 0 > Write errors: 0 > Total transferred: 88480000 bytes > HTML transferred: 86050000 bytes > Requests per second: 97.17 [#/sec] (mean) > Time per request: 205.827 [ms] (mean) > Time per request: 10.291 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) > Transfer rate: 839.60 [Kbytes/sec] received > > > Racket: > > Concurrency Level: 20 > Time taken for tests: 139.059 seconds > Complete requests: 10000 > Failed requests: 687 > (Connect: 0, Receive: 0, Length: 687, Exceptions: 0) > Write errors: 0 > Total transferred: 9421469 bytes > HTML transferred: 7100095 bytes > Requests per second: 71.91 [#/sec] (mean) > Time per request: 278.119 [ms] (mean) > Time per request: 13.906 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) > Transfer rate: 66.16 [Kbytes/sec] received > > > I'm hoping it's just inexperience on my part - maybe my Racket code just > sucks. Or maybe it's that I'm trying to > stay functional and avoid mutation, which I don't bother with in the other > two. Anyone interested in looking at > the code and telling me what I'm doing wrong, or could do better? I would > love to use Racket for more serious > projects. > > https://github.com/TurtleKitty/CalicoBill > > > Thanks, > TurtleKitty > > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
