No I didn't run those in production, but that's mostly because Vintage
reloads templates every time (i.e., no caching and such like
production modes on both of those).  I didn't think about sessions, so
I should turn those off.  These numbers were for the same
functionality among all the frameworks.

I'm working on some better numbers using production modes, evented
Mongrels, Thin, and so on.  I'll post them here (hopefully) tonight
when I can get the data collected. :)

--Jeremy

On Jan 6, 2008 11:18 AM, ara.t.howard <ara.t.howard / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2008, at 9:20 AM, Jeremy McAnally wrote:
>
> > Merb:  56 rp/s
> > Rails:  41 rp/s
> > Vintage:  534 rp/s
>
> this doesn't smell right.  on even a modest box i would expect merb
> and rails, with sessions turned off and no db query, to server
> somewhere in the hundreds of rps.  on my box both rails and merb
> would do at least 4-500 rps.  conversely, a simple fastcgi process
> running under mod_fcgid expanding a simple template might churn out
> something like 2000 rps.
>
> are you positive you were running in production mode for rails/merb
> with both not using sessions and on top of mongrel?  if so it's very
> impressive, but those number just look like development mode with
> sessions and no cookie argument to 'ab' to me...
>
> on another note vintage looks like a really cool idea - people,
> myself included, are yearning for something really simple.
>
> cheers.
>
> a @ http://codeforpeople.com/
> --
> it is not enough to be compassionate.  you must act.
> h.h. the 14th dalai lama
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
http://www.jeremymcanally.com/

My books:
Ruby in Practice
http://www.manning.com/mcanally/

My free Ruby e-book
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/

My blogs:
http://www.mrneighborly.com/
http://www.rubyinpractice.com/