> > One of that ideas I had is comparing Apache+perl,
> Apache+mod_perl,
> > Apache+php3 and IIS+ASP [microsoft's stuff] with Comanche+Squeak:
> >
> > perl, php3 and ASP are all interpreted languages (I believe),
> > as well as
> > Squeak is.
You might want to take a look at JAWS:
http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~jxh/research/research.html#bench. There is
a lot of good information here.
> I too am very interested in this benchmark. It should be
> more meaningful.
> We use Squeak to serve NetUnify.com and Swiki.net with great
> success. We've
> yet to encounter any performance issues with it. We
> currently serve about
> 700 users, and running on our local network, the performance
> difference
> between Squeak and our internal IIS server (serving static
> pages) is hardly
> noticeable. And, we serve everything through Squeak (images and files
> included). Our bottleneck is our bandwidth (by far). Unless
> you are going
> plop down several thousand dollars per month for a 10mbps and higher
> connection to the net, then you are likely not going to hit Squeaks
> performance limits...and if you do, you can always use multiple Squeak
> servers.
>
> We did however write our own socket interface to take
> advantage of NT's
> enhanced (as compared to Win9x) socket API. One day, I'll
> get around to
> benchmarking our server with Apache and IIS. Most of the performance
> limitations of Squeak/Comanche (out of the box) have to do with HTTP
> protocol support and socket interface issues (which vary by
> platform)...not
> with Squeak itself.
What is in the NT socket API that helped vs Win9x ?
> For instance, we recently have implemented persistent
> HTTP/1.1 connections,
> support for "If-Modified-Since" headers, and several other
> tweeks that make
> a noticeable difference. We've also started using SSP to
> generate dynamic
> pages in a lot of places where we were using text formatters
> (with mutiple
> levels of formatting applied). In some cases, moving to SSP
> reduced request
> processing time from 200ms to 20ms (on a less powerful
> development machine).
>
> > Squeak's interpreter (VM) is always on memory, the
> Scripts are always
> > compiled, Squeak's interpreter doesn't have a JIT, but it will
> > have a good JIT
> > soon.
>
> Let's hope so...JIT will make Squeak one of the fastest VMs
> around (it's
> already 10x faster than some of the commercial VMs)...and I
I didn't realize it was that much faster than some of the
commercial products - who's? I'm still waiting for JitterIII
so I can really avoid writing any C/C++.
> doubt any other
> open source VMs (for any language) can touch it...at least
> not any with the
> popularity that Squeak has. VisualWorks will likely remain a
> little faster,
> as will a couple other commercial VMs...most of the Java VMs
> don't even come
> close.
Do you have any data to back this up? I would love to redirect
some future projects from Java to Squeak.
-david
