I'm interested in the answers to the other questions posed, but additionally, I'd be curious what version of Racket you are using.
I recently (in the last three-ish months) fixed a problem with concurrent requests. Jay On 4/11/12, jos...@anwu.org <jos...@anwu.org> wrote: > > Racketeers, > > I'm new to the language, and loving it. I'm having trouble getting good > performance out of my little toy web app, however. > > I wrote this fake billing app to play with some new languages (like Racket) > and some other webdev ideas I've had (like client-side > templating with jQuery and mustache). As such, I have the same JSON api > written in Perl, Ruby, and Racket (working on node.js > and Haskell). Perl runs under Dancer and Starman, ruby under Sinatra and > Unicorn, and Racket under nohup and its own included webserver. > All are running on the same machine. Each connects to a postgres db, > executes some queries from a config file, and returns JSON > to the client. > > I've been running apache bench against all three, and the performance of > Racket vs Perl and Ruby has been... disheartening. I > compiled the racket code with 'raco exe' before running it, but Perl and > Ruby both blow it away. The racket executable also > seems to grab and hold a lot of memory, even though I told it to be > stateless. It also tends to have failures. > > ab -c 20 -n 10000 <uri> > > > Perl: > > Concurrency Level: 20 > Time taken for tests: 86.100 seconds > Complete requests: 10000 > Failed requests: 0 > Write errors: 0 > Total transferred: 88150000 bytes > HTML transferred: 86300000 bytes > Requests per second: 116.14 [#/sec] (mean) > Time per request: 172.199 [ms] (mean) > Time per request: 8.610 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) > Transfer rate: 999.82 [Kbytes/sec] received > > > Ruby: > > Concurrency Level: 20 > Time taken for tests: 102.914 seconds > Complete requests: 10000 > Failed requests: 0 > Write errors: 0 > Total transferred: 88480000 bytes > HTML transferred: 86050000 bytes > Requests per second: 97.17 [#/sec] (mean) > Time per request: 205.827 [ms] (mean) > Time per request: 10.291 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) > Transfer rate: 839.60 [Kbytes/sec] received > > > Racket: > > Concurrency Level: 20 > Time taken for tests: 139.059 seconds > Complete requests: 10000 > Failed requests: 687 > (Connect: 0, Receive: 0, Length: 687, Exceptions: 0) > Write errors: 0 > Total transferred: 9421469 bytes > HTML transferred: 7100095 bytes > Requests per second: 71.91 [#/sec] (mean) > Time per request: 278.119 [ms] (mean) > Time per request: 13.906 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) > Transfer rate: 66.16 [Kbytes/sec] received > > > I'm hoping it's just inexperience on my part - maybe my Racket code just > sucks. Or maybe it's that I'm trying to > stay functional and avoid mutation, which I don't bother with in the other > two. Anyone interested in looking at > the code and telling me what I'm doing wrong, or could do better? I would > love to use Racket for more serious > projects. > > https://github.com/TurtleKitty/CalicoBill > > > Thanks, > TurtleKitty > > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
