I'm researching a bit about current options to create a web
application (like everyone else, it seems :-) where there are
real speed constraints. I was quite happy to see the benchmark[1]
stating more than 500 connections per second, but I couldn't
reproduce that result in my own tests. Using the code below,
the command "ab2 -n 1000 http://localhost:8000/" states around
132 requests/second, which is way behind.

[1] http://www.cherrypy.org/wiki/CherryPySpeed

Is CherryPy slower since the benchmark was done?

The tested environment is:

  * Processor: Pentium M 1.7 Ghz
  * RAM: 512GB
  * Linux 2.6.12 (Ubuntu)
  * Load testing tool: ab2 from Apache2
  * CherryPy version: 2.2.0beta (SVN Rev. 956)

The code used is:

  import cherrypy
  class Root:
      @cherrypy.expose
      def index(self):
          return "OK"
  cherrypy.root = Root()
  cherrypy.config.update({'global': {
          'server.socket_port': 8000,
          'server.log_to_screen': False,
          'server.environment': 'production',
          }})
  cherrypy.server.start()

Regards,

I wonder if there's some kind of permanent analysis on those
numbers to warn developers if a change that affects performance
badly goes in. If there's no such test, might be worth thinking
about it.

Thanks for the pointer.

There is no such test and as indeed it would be more than welcome in the
CherryPy world. If you have ideas go ahead :)

- Sylvain

Gustavo Niemeyer a écrit :

As a random point of comparison, plain mod_python does 586 reqs/sec
on the same environment, and twisted web does 407 (yes, different
frameworks yadda yadda yadda).

Apologies.

On Feb 07, 2006, at 19:40, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:

[Cherrypy]
% python -V
Python 2.4.2
% python tut01_helloworld.py
% ab -n 10000 http://localhost:8080/
Requests per second:    164.92 [#/sec] (mean)
% ab -n 10000 -c 10 http://localhost:8080/
Requests per second:    164.77 [#/sec] (mean)

[Webrick]
% ruby -v
ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24) [powerpc-darwin7.9.0]
% ruby webrick_compare.rb >& /dev/null
% ab -n 10000 http://localhost:4000/test
Requests per second:    37.90 [#/sec] (mean)
% ab -n 10000 -c 10 http://localhost:4000/test
Requests per second:    27.58 [#/sec] (mean)

[Mongrel]
% ruby -v
ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24) [powerpc-darwin7.9.0]
% ruby simpletest.rb
% ab -n 10000 http://localhost:3000/test
Requests per second:    660.20 [#/sec] (mean)
% ab -n 10000 -c 10 http://localhost:3000/test
Requests per second:    386.31 [#/sec] (mean)

[LuaWeb]
% lua -v
Lua 5.1  Copyright (C) 1994-2006 Lua.org, PUC-Rio
% lua Test.lua
% ab -n 10000 http://localhost:1080/hello
Requests per second:    948.32 [#/sec] (mean)
% ab -n 10000 -c 10 http://localhost:1080/hello
Requests per second:    927.04 [#/sec] (mean)

[httpd]
% httpd -v
Server version: Apache/1.3.33 (Darwin)
% ab -n 10000 http://localhost/test.txt
Requests per second:    1218.47 [#/sec] (mean)
% ab -n 10000 -c 10 http://localhost/test.txt
Requests per second:    1186.10 [#/sec] (mean)

[lighttpd]
% lighttpd -v
lighttpd-1.4.9 - a light and fast webserver
% ab -n 10000 http://localhost:8888/test.txt
Requests per second:    3652.30 [#/sec] (mean)
% ab -n 10000 -c 10 http://localhost:8888/test.txt
Called sick today (fdevent.c.170: aborted)

Cheers

I can appreciate CherryPy being far behind lightttpd but I wonder why so
far away and what could be the main bottleneck.

- Sylvain

PA a écrit :