Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket Web servlet performance benchmarked and compared

2017-09-05 Thread Jack Firth
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 3:17:38 AM UTC-7, Piyush Katariya wrote: > Wow. ~7K looks like good number. > > Is it common practice to spawn Thread for each request ? Is it that cheap > from resource point of view ? can ThreadPool could be of some help here ? Racket threads are not OS thread

[racket-users] Rackterm error

2017-09-05 Thread James
I'm trying out Rackterm for the purpose of running commands put together from a GUI but it looks like the thread is crashing as soon as I try to create a terminal canvas. Is it something I am not doing right or is there a bug? I am able to run rackterm/xterm without error and that contains ver

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket Web servlet performance benchmarked and compared

2017-09-05 Thread Piyush Katariya
Wow. ~7K looks like good number. Is it common practice to spawn Thread for each request ? Is it that cheap from resource point of view ? can ThreadPool could be of some help here ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscrib

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket Web servlet performance benchmarked and compared

2017-09-05 Thread Jay McCarthy
Is the benchmarking client core the same core as the server core? Could that help explain why single threaded performance is best? On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM, dbohdan wrote: > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:41:46 AM UTC+3, dbohdan wrote: >> I'll try this again with two fixed cores avail

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket Web servlet performance benchmarked and compared

2017-09-05 Thread dbohdan
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:41:46 AM UTC+3, dbohdan wrote: > I'll try this again with two fixed cores available to the application > container. results/custom-many-places.txt:Requests per second:6517.83 [#/sec] (mean) results/custom-many.txt:Requests per second:7949.04 [#/sec] (me

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket Web servlet performance benchmarked and compared

2017-09-05 Thread dbohdan
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:57:17 AM UTC+3, Jay McCarthy wrote: > I've just tested on Linux and OS X and I don't see that behavior. I'm > quite confused. Yes, scratch what I said. The "many-places" benchmark only fails this way for me on a particular Linux VM, which just so happened to be

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket Web servlet performance benchmarked and compared

2017-09-05 Thread Jay McCarthy
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:07 AM, dbohdan wrote: > == > results/custom-many.txt:Requests per second:6720.43 [#/sec] (mean) > results/custom-places.txt:Requests per second:7095.99 [#/sec] (mean) > results/custom-single.txt:Requests per second:7609.11 [#/sec] (mean) > == That is i

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket Web servlet performance benchmarked and compared

2017-09-05 Thread dbohdan
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 8:50:27 AM UTC+3, Jon Zeppieri wrote: > (tcp-abandon-port r) > (tcp-abandon-port w) You're right. This worked for "places". I've rerun "single" and "many" along with "places". == results/custom-many.txt:Requests per second:6720.43 [#/sec] (mean) resul