Re: Fwd: Siege benchmarks for Pierre

Pierre Sahores wrote: Story made short : in keeping LC CGI server as the unit reference of 1, 1.- the LuaJIT fastCGI platform is 34 X times faster; 2.- the Livecode AS platform is 100 X times faster. Great stuff, Pierre - thanks! The lesson I'm learning from our benchmarks in this thread:

Fwd: Siege benchmarks for Pierre

Good Evening Everyone, Same tests done against Citalis, a real world web app next to come live online in its OpenLiteSpeed + Livecode CGI + MySQL version and on GITHUB for download in its two OpenResty's prefered versions (Livecode application’s server, LuaJIT + Redis, both powered by a

Re: Siege benchmarks for Pierre

> Le 29 mars 2016 à 22:29, Richard Gaskin a écrit : > > Pierre Sahores wrote: > > >> Le 29 mars 2016 à 17:44, Richard Gaskin a écrit : > >> > >> Pierre Sahores wrote: > ... > > Interesting reads even if the 2d article's last test related to > > micro-caching needs

Re: Siege benchmarks for Pierre

> Le 29 mars 2016 à 22:30, Tom Glod a écrit : > > Fascinating thread! thanks guys. > > Any test with node.js as a file server? While raw JS and JQuery are, beside fine prebuild templates alike those ones ! : http://html5up.net/ i like to tune web interface from (as some

Re: Siege benchmarks for Pierre

Fascinating thread! thanks guys. Any test with node.js as a file server? On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:54 PM, wrote: > Sorry. Found a mistake in my last mail. please, see the rectification > below. > > > - 50% read / 50% write : nginx+luajit (openresty) + LUA or fine >

Re: Siege benchmarks for Pierre

Pierre Sahores wrote: >> Le 29 mars 2016 à 17:44, Richard Gaskin a écrit : >> >> Pierre Sahores wrote: ... > Interesting reads even if the 2d article's last test related to > micro-caching needs to be read with care... Understood. I offered them merely as inspiration for the scope of

Fwd: Siege benchmarks for Pierre

Sorry. Found a mistake in my last mail. please, see the rectification below. > - 50% read / 50% write : nginx+luajit (openresty) + LUA or fine tuned/Heap > RAM scaled Tomcat7 : some hundreds of requests / second (lots less under > apache2) Best, -- Pierre Sahores mobile : 06 03 95 77 70

Re: Siege benchmarks for Pierre

Hello Richard, > Le 29 mars 2016 à 17:44, Richard Gaskin a écrit : > > Pierre Sahores wrote: > >> If your lcHTTPd standalone is a TCP sockets server, the low TOP load >> (less than 25%) is not surprising at all and can even go lots less in >> using nginx instead of

Fwd: Re: Siege benchmarks for Pierre

Pierre Sahores wrote: If your lcHTTPd standalone is a TCP sockets server, the low TOP load (less than 25%) is not surprising at all and can even go lots less in using nginx instead of apache... Yes, the benefits of using NginX as the broker instead of Apache are well documented in these

Re: Siege benchmarks for Pierre

Richard, If your lcHTTPd standalone is a TCP sockets server, the low TOP load (less than 25%) is not surprising at all and can even go lots less in using nginx instead of apache (6 to 8%) while the power consomption increase on the PostgreSQL controllers pool side (-> LC app’s server will

Re: Siege benchmarks for Pierre

Hi Richard, Good stuff, this siege, is’t ? Probably more readable than Apache Bench. Stay tuned. I will be back soon with more to share : advanced testing against a real word web application with up to seventy PostgreSQL calls per request (ways to setup best pg urbanization but the goal was in

Siege benchmarks for Pierre

Pierre, thanks for introducing me to Siege in your benchmark posts from Feb. For those who missed them he has some great stuff there: http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2016-February/223352.html http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2016-February/223496.html