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

dbohdan wrote on 09/09/2017 02:40 PM: When I limit the memory usage in racket-custom to the total RAM on the VPS minus what the OS uses (through custodian-limit-memory) Racket quits with an out of memory error at the point when it would be killed by the OS. racket-scgi seems to behave the

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

On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 1:09:19 PM UTC+3, Jay McCarthy wrote: > Wow! Thanks for all of this work. It is really interesting to see how > different the performance is on the Internet workload! Once again, you're welcome! See my reply to Neil Van Dyke for some reasoning about the Internet

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

On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 4:29:34 PM UTC+3, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > dbohdan wrote on 09/07/2017 04:52 PM: > > The #/sec for each implementation are suspiciously similar. I wonder > whether they're limited by something like an accounting limit imposed on > the VPS (such as

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

dbohdan wrote on 09/07/2017 04:52 PM: Last, I ran the benchmark over the Internet with two machines about 1.89×10^-10 light years apart. The applications ran on a very humble VPS. Due to its humbleness I had to reduce the number of concurrent connections to 25. The #/sec for each

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

Wow! Thanks for all of this work. It is really interesting to see how different the performance is on the Internet workload! On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:52 PM, dbohdan wrote: > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 12:41:04 PM UTC+3, Jay McCarthy wrote: >> Is the benchmarking

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

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:52 PM, dbohdan wrote: > > In both cases the ordering is still "single" > "many" > "places" > > "many-places". Though "many" and "places" are pretty close in the first case, > "many" consistently comes out ahead if you retest. This is really

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

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 12:41:04 PM UTC+3, Jay McCarthy wrote: > Is the benchmarking client core the same core as the server core? > Could that help explain why single threaded performance is best? The not-quite-yes-or-no answer is that they were limited to separate virtual cores inside

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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]

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

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)

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

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:38 AM, dbohdan wrote: > On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 7:11:14 PM UTC+3, Jay McCarthy wrote: > I would like to add you to the AUTHORS file > (https://gitlab.com/dbohdan/racket-vs-the-world/blob/master/AUTHORS — please > read). Would this

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

I think so too (in both places versions) On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Jon Zeppieri wrote: > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 1:38 AM, dbohdan wrote: >> >> I've run the default benchmark with the new application, which I've dubbed >> "racket-custom".

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

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 1:38 AM, dbohdan wrote: > > I've run the default benchmark with the new application, which I've dubbed > "racket-custom". (Actually, I had to make a tweak to the benchmark to > accommodate the number of requests it was fulfilling. It made

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

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 7:11:14 PM UTC+3, Jay McCarthy wrote: > Thank you for working on this Danyil. You're welcome! > Would you please add this file to your tests (and each of its three > ways of running?) Added, and updated to the "many-places" version. I would like to add you to

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

I thought of another way, so here's a fourth version: #lang racket/base (require racket/tcp racket/match racket/place) (define message #"Lorem ipsum...") ;; XXX fill this in (define len (bytes-length message)) (define (serve! r w) (let read-loop () (define b

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

Thank you for working on this Danyil. I think it is fair to test what the defaults give you. Would you please add this file to your tests (and each of its three ways of running?) It would be interesting to compare the performance of Racket versus the particular Web server library. (The Web server

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

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 8:46:54 PM UTC+3, Piyush Katariya wrote: > Does Racket app make use of all CPU cores by having multiple processes ? Thanks for asking this question. It prompted me to revise how the benchmark is run. The short answer is that the servlet application uses a single

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

Thanks for the clarification. On 03-Sep-2017 12:31 AM, "George Neuner" wrote: > > On 9/2/2017 1:46 PM, Piyush Katariya wrote: > >> Does Racket app make use of all CPU cores by having multiple processes ? >> > > If it is written to use "places", which are parallel instances

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

On 9/2/2017 1:46 PM, Piyush Katariya wrote: Does Racket app make use of all CPU cores by having multiple processes ? If it is written to use "places", which are parallel instances of the Racket VM that run on separate kernel threads.

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

Then it might not be a fair benchmark with a comparison to other Platforms. Isnt it ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

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

The Racket web server does not make use of multiple CPU cores, but with stateless continuations you can run multiple instances behind a reverse proxy. See https://groups.google.com/d/topic/racket-users/TC4JJnZo1U8/discussion ("it is exactly node.js without callbacks"). -Philip On Sat, Sep 2,

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

Just curious ... Does Racket app make use of all CPU cores by having multiple processes ? In go app, there isnt any need to becoz golang runtime uses all CPU avialble by default. So is the case with JVM and Erlang VM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google