From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8876BBC1 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:57:25 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEACpWDEjAXQIm/2dsb2JhbACqVQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,690,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="9848540" Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2008 17:57:25 +0200 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m3LFvKai015698 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:57:25 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: At8BAGZWDEjBL1AZiGdsb2JhbACRWAEBAQ8mmEY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,690,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="11204654" Received: from gw.exalead.com (HELO exalead.com) ([193.47.80.25]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2008 17:57:25 +0200 Received: from [192.168.204.148] (madpc064.exalead.com [192.168.204.148]) (authenticated bits=0) by exalead.com (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m3LFvPmg006578 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:57:25 +0200 Message-ID: <480CB965.40708@exalead.com> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:57:25 +0200 From: Berke Durak User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Caml-list List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The closing gap (warning: long, inflammatory rant) References: <142199.28761.qm@web54607.mail.re2.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <142199.28761.qm@web54607.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 480CB960.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; berke:01 durak:01 berke:01 durak:01 malloc:01 haskell:01 seq:01 ocaml:01 bytecode:01 tops:98 imho:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 alain:01 data:02 Dario Teixeira wrote: > Hi, > >> Now data center owners love Ruby-based apps, since you need 60 servers to do >> 300 requests/second. > > Is this hyperbole or hard numbers? Since I finally managed to use natdynlink > on an AMD64 machine (see Alain Frisch's today's message to this list), I ran > some simple benchmarks on a dummy Ocsigen application generating dynamic pages. > Hello, Well I'll say that it's hyperbole to be on the safe side, but you might want to look at this: http://highscalability.com/friends-sale-architecture-300-million-page-view-month-facebook-ror-app Some people say that it's a Rails problem but why has Ruby the place it has on the shootout? Can't they indulge in some malloc+pointer-arithmetic tricks like our Haskell brothers :) ? > The results were more than good enough for my purposes, though I can't really > compare them with other languages/frameworks: > > http://nleyten.com/2008/04/21/simple-benchmarks-on-the-ocsigen-server.aspx Well these are pretty good numbers IMHO. My own monadically threaded homegrown "framework" tops at about 300 reqs/seq at ronchonneuse.com (native code, a Dedibox on a VIA Esther at 2GHz), and it goes thru Lighttpd via SCGI (FastCGI should improve it but it's not worth the hassle for now.) > Could Ocsigen be a killer app for Ocaml? Should we think of setting up > a simple "web framework shootout"? (Though personally I think the > advantages of Ocsigen go way beyond speed). Could be, but not in bytecode. Let's place our hopes in natdynlink! -- Berke DURAK