I may look into this in more detail later, but I ran a simple benchmark comparison on my modest AWS EC2 server (ApacheBench can behave poorly on MacOS).
1) I ran ApacheBench w/ 6 processes to fetch a simple "hello world" static html file using only nginx. I got roughly 650 requests per second. 2) I then ran ApacheBench w/ 6 processes against one of my Racket web apps using a monitoring endpoint that does a simple db query to determine the health of the server, so this went from nginx (acting as a load balancer and https handler) to the Racket processes via proxy_pass (only 2 running in parallel) which exercises my custom dispatching and a simple postgres query. No continuations and completely stateless. I got roughly 350 requests per second. At first glance, that doesn't appear to be that much overhead when comparing the two. In fact, I would've expected the very small static html request to be significantly more than double the req/sec of the Racket app db request. I developed Rails apps for over a decade, and I know my Racket web apps are significantly faster in similar "database backed web apps" context. I believe there is something wrong with those benchmarks at the moment. Brian On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 3:40:52 PM UTC-4, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > I'm skeptical both of the DB explanation and the multi-core > explanation. As you say, the difference between something like Django > and Racket is much too large to be explained by that. For example, on > the "plaintext" benchmark, Racket serves about 700 req/sec (I get > similar results on my machine). Many of the benchmarks in languages > like Python and Ruby do more than 1000x better, which means that even > if we had perfect speedup on 32 cores, we'd be nowhere close. > Additionally, the "plaintext" benchmark doesn't touch the DB at all. I > tried commenting out all of the DB code entirely, and it did not > change the results. > > My guess is that the web server is just doing a lot of per-response > work that would need to be optimized. > > Sam > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 2:12 PM George Neuner <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > > > On 6/1/2020 1:40 PM, Bogdan Popa wrote: > > > I replied earlier today off of my Phone, but, for whatever reason > > > (caught in the moderation queue?), it's not showing up in this thread. > > > > > > Here's what it said: > > > > > > The reason for poor performance relative to the other > > > langs/frameworks is that there is currently no easy way to take > > > advantage of multiple cores using the web framework so that's > being > > > benchmarked is single-core performance. > > > > > > This is mainly a problem for benchmarks such as this, but not > really > > > an issue in the real world where you'd just run multiple processes > > > with a load balancer in front. > > > > Single core [by itself] doesn't explain the enormous performance > > difference between Racket and Django. > > > > I haven't looked at the Django submission - Python's (in)comprehensions > > give me a headache. But Python's DB pool is threaded, and Python's > > threads are core limited by the GIL in all the major implementations > > (excepting Jython). > > > > There are a few things Python can do faster than Racket, but the VAST > > difference in performance shown in the techempower tests isn't explained > > by them. My suspicion is that the Racket application is making too many > > database connections and not relying enough on its open connection > > pool. Hundreds of trivial requests can be served in the time it takes > > to spin up a new backend process. > > > > YMMV, > > George > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Racket Users" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/9236dcff-81df-1db8-c2ef-06b20e4690ec%40comcast.net. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/ce26a93b-e1f2-425a-abc9-be991ff0e4e4%40googlegroups.com.
