------art_14259_14471504.1151851329009
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Ruby didn't do poorly. With fastcgi, it compares with PHP5. I think that's
> quite
> respectable. What did poorly was RoR. ruby+fastcgi has good performance,
> but it
> drops by over an order of magnitude if you add rails to the mix. Now
> *that* is
> quite telling.
>
> Daniel
> <<<<<<<<



We recently did a simple hello world test with Rails on a very low-end
machine and compared it with a Ruby framework that we built for our
commercial apps. Both apps had no database, and simply served the phrase
"Hello, world" with a text/plain mime type. The test client was running
localhost to minimize TCP and network effects. Rails was running in fast-cgi
mode (one process for the whole run) and our framework was running in CGI
mode (one fork per request).

Rails did 20 pages per second. The other app did 200 per second.
(Straight-run apache with a cached static page of similar size could
probably do 1000/second or more on this machine.)

Bear in mind, both of these frameworks are *Ruby*. This tells me the
comparison to other languages is misleading at best.

------art_14259_14471504.1151851329009--