-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Hi Shane
>> Betreff: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
>> Hi all,
>> I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
>> The proposal is intended to explain my thoughts on the
>> subject more thoroughly.
> Do you know something about the performance of WSGI?
> I whould be happy to see some perfomance tests comparing
> WSGI with other server concepts.
Chris McDonough wrote up some "complexity" benchmarks here:
We did some work early on in the repoze effort comparing the various
Note that the relative differences between the various servers drop off
steeply once the application begins doing any real work (even the Z2
quickstart page). This is because requests-per-second is actually a
deceptive measure: we should probably switch to talking "microseconds
per request" instead.
In general, if you need full-on backward compatibility with the existing
behavior of Zope2 / Zope3 / Grok, switching to a paste-driven WSGI
pipeline doesn't gain you much speed (but it is not a loss, either).
If, for a given application, you can relax the BBB requirement, then
some performance wins are available via WSGI which can't be made in the
monolithic publisher (dropping out features by removing the middleware
Real speed wins only come from more radical simplifications: for
instance, repoze.bfg drops the adapter-based traversal semantics in
favor of using only __getitem__. The fact that the BFG "hello world"
app is ~20 times faster than the Grok "hello world" is due to such
 163 us/req for the BFG vs.3012 us/req for Grok in Chris'
profiling, the difference is more marked with profiling turned off.
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -