kevin beckford dijo [Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:16:48AM -0700]: > > My point was that a 1.6k static file really isn't what makes up a typical > > website - so why would you use it to benchmark? > > Agreed. Something simple like a django/rails/catalyst/ app to , i don't > know, pull out the mailing list archives or something would be a better > benchmark. > > Of course benchmarks are not really that important, cherokee's admin is why > i'm using it really. It's a (bit) easier to use than nginx right now, and > that is the thing for me.
Still, benchmarking such an application places the bottleneck at the wrong spot - In my (somewhat limited) experience, you won't have much difference between Cherokee and other web servers on simple setups handling a Rails application - as Cherokee will be limited to two functions: - Serving static content (everything inside public/). This should be seen as what has already been benchmarked elsewhere. - Serving dynamic content. The bottleneck is your application server (i.e. Mongrel running Rails). The real, main application. Of course, you can set up a big Mongrel cluster - some tens of processes, having Cherokee round-robin between them. But... That will be misleading IMHO as a Cherokee benchmark - You will be measuring the throughput of a gang of Mongrels. You could as well just measure Cherokee as a proxy for any content. Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - [email protected] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
