S, Philippe Marschall piše: > Janko Mivšek wrote: >> Results are interesting, Pharo is now only 3x slower than VW on dynamic >> page generation but on network layer it is the same or even slighty >> faster, ...
> Do you have any explanation for this? I'm amazed at how close the number > for static content are. Sure, it's the same Smalltalk code but different > VMs. At least in the AJP case the image maxes out one core so I would > expect the VM to play a big role. The numbers for dynamic content are > more what I would expect. It was surprise for me too. Ok, for 8K responses not too much, because this is almost a plain block copying by primitive in VM and here Pharo VM cannot be much slower to VW, but for zero size responses? I just rechecked once again, same results. I checked with Wireshark network sniffer that request and responses were composed correctly and keep-alive worked. There are differences between both traces but not so much to be worth studying how both VMs assemble and dissasemble TCP packets. CPU was saturated 100% in VW and 110%(?) in Pharo (top - looking just VM proces). This is two core machine. It seems that network layer works most in both cases while image processing much less, that's why differences in speed are not so evident, IMHO. Bust still, how can I check that? Best regards Janko > > Cheers > Philippe > > > -- Janko Mivšek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si
