[Pharo-project] Few Aida on Swazoo benchmarks, Pharo and VW
Hi guys, Encouraged by recent Philippe's benchmarking I did similar on Aida with Swazoo web server, adding the comparison of Pharo with VisualWorks. Results are interesting, Pharo is now only 3x slower than VW on dynamic page generation but on network layer it is the same or even slighty faster, while it was around 10x slower on Squeak back in 2008 [1], Results (requests/s) -------------------- 1. Dynamically generated 3KB login page (/admin?view=login) VW: 120, Pharo: 40 ratio: 3x 2. Aida ping with zero size response (/ping.html) local: VW: 4700, Pharo: 4500 ratio: 1,04x lan: VW: 4500 Pharo: 4600 ratio: 0,97x inet: VW: 4000, Pharo: 3000 ratio: 1,33x 3. Aida ping with 8K response local: VW: 2600, Pharo: 3100 ratio: 0,84x lan: VW: 1400, Pharo: 1400 ratio: 1,00x inet: VW: 140, Pharo: 140 ratio: 1,00x Note: network saturation! Legend: local: client run on local machine lan: client run on machine over 1Gb/s LAN netwrok inet: client run on machine over 100/10Mb/s internet connection Test environment ---------------- ab (ApacheBech) testing tool Test machine: Intel Core i7 860 (2 cores) at 2.80GHz, 8GB RAM openSuse 11.4 64bit Linux Pharo 1.3 13320 OneClick (with CogVM) VisualWorks 7.8 Aida 6.4 (right after installation) Swazoo patch to allow Keep Alive (ab -k) over HTTP 1.0: HTTPConnection>>getAndDispatchMessages ... (self task request isHttp10 and: [self task request isKeepAlive not]) ifTrue: [self close]. ... [1] Swazoo vs. Apache Benchmark (2008) http://www.swazoo.org/benchmarks/swazoo-vs-apache.html Best regards Janko -- Janko Mivšek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si
On 02/27/2012 01:56 PM, Janko Mivšek wrote:
... Results are interesting, Pharo is now only 3x slower than VW on dynamic page generation but on network layer it is the same or even slighty faster, ...
Do you have any explanation for this? I'm amazed at how close the number for static content are. Sure, it's the same Smalltalk code but different VMs. At least in the AJP case the image maxes out one core so I would expect the VM to play a big role. The numbers for dynamic content are more what I would expect. Cheers Philippe
S, Philippe Marschall piše:
Janko Mivšek wrote:
Results are interesting, Pharo is now only 3x slower than VW on dynamic page generation but on network layer it is the same or even slighty faster, ...
Do you have any explanation for this? I'm amazed at how close the number for static content are. Sure, it's the same Smalltalk code but different VMs. At least in the AJP case the image maxes out one core so I would expect the VM to play a big role. The numbers for dynamic content are more what I would expect.
It was surprise for me too. Ok, for 8K responses not too much, because this is almost a plain block copying by primitive in VM and here Pharo VM cannot be much slower to VW, but for zero size responses? I just rechecked once again, same results. I checked with Wireshark network sniffer that request and responses were composed correctly and keep-alive worked. There are differences between both traces but not so much to be worth studying how both VMs assemble and dissasemble TCP packets. CPU was saturated 100% in VW and 110%(?) in Pharo (top - looking just VM proces). This is two core machine. It seems that network layer works most in both cases while image processing much less, that's why differences in speed are not so evident, IMHO. Bust still, how can I check that? Best regards Janko
Cheers Philippe
-- Janko Mivšek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si
participants (2)
-
Janko Mivšek -
Philippe Marschall