Re: Vibe.d - very low performance

2017-07-15 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d
On 2017-07-14 11:55, Marek wrote: So why Ruby or Python frameworks are much faster in this benchmark? They scale better since, at least Ruby on Rails applications, are run using multiple processes. -- /Jacob Carlborg

Re: Vibe.d - very low performance

2017-07-14 Thread yawniek via Digitalmars-d
On Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 07:27:24 UTC, Marek wrote: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14=ph=plaintext C++, Java and Go frameworks have very high performance. Vibe.d is supposed to have similar performance, but in fact vibe.d performance is very low. Why? these tests

Re: Vibe.d - very low performance

2017-07-14 Thread Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d
Am 14.07.2017 um 11:55 schrieb Marek: On Friday, 7 July 2017 at 19:03:52 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: I think that vibe.d didn't take full advantage of multi core, even when enabling threading support. Ruby, or rather Rails, applications are usually run using multiple processes, which allows to

Re: Vibe.d - very low performance

2017-07-14 Thread Marek via Digitalmars-d
On Friday, 7 July 2017 at 19:03:52 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: I think that vibe.d didn't take full advantage of multi core, even when enabling threading support. Ruby, or rather Rails, applications are usually run using multiple processes, which allows to scale on a multi core CPU. You can do

Re: Vibe.d - very low performance

2017-07-08 Thread tetyys via Digitalmars-d
these tests are pretty flawed considering that top places are taken by event loop libraries that have no other features other than 'respond to request'

Re: Vibe.d - very low performance

2017-07-07 Thread Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d
Am 07.07.2017 um 21:27 schrieb FoxyBrown: On Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 10:57:31 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: Am 06.07.2017 um 09:27 schrieb Marek: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14=ph=plaintext C++, Java and Go frameworks have very high performance. Vibe.d is supposed to

Re: Vibe.d - very low performance

2017-07-07 Thread FoxyBrown via Digitalmars-d
On Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 10:57:31 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: Am 06.07.2017 um 09:27 schrieb Marek: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14=ph=plaintext C++, Java and Go frameworks have very high performance. Vibe.d is supposed to have similar performance, but in fact vibe.d

Re: Vibe.d - very low performance

2017-07-07 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d
On 2017-07-07 20:22, Marek wrote: What do you mean by 'scalability'? Raw tornado or bottle frameworks have much better results than vibe.d. Python and Ruby have GIL so they can't use threads in their standard implementations. They have much better results anyway. I think that vibe.d didn't

Re: Vibe.d - very low performance

2017-07-07 Thread Marek via Digitalmars-d
On Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 10:57:31 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: This is a scalability issue, which should hopefully be fixed with 0.8.0. I'll open a PR once that is out. Basically with the version that was used in the last benchmark round, it didn't scale at all, and they use a server with many

Re: Vibe.d - very low performance

2017-07-06 Thread Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d
Am 06.07.2017 um 09:27 schrieb Marek: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14=ph=plaintext C++, Java and Go frameworks have very high performance. Vibe.d is supposed to have similar performance, but in fact vibe.d performance is very low. Why? This is a scalability issue,

Vibe.d - very low performance

2017-07-06 Thread Marek via Digitalmars-d
https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14=ph=plaintext C++, Java and Go frameworks have very high performance. Vibe.d is supposed to have similar performance, but in fact vibe.d performance is very low. Why?