From: Edgardo Hames <ehames@...>
Date: 2004-08-19T04:48:44+09:00
Subject: Re: [RAILS] way too slow...

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:28:49 +0900, Carl Youngblood
<carl.youngblood@gmail.com> wrote:
> In today's world, boxes are cheap.  Development time is what costs
> money.  Rails saves money where it matters most.  If your site is
> bogged down, just add a few servers to your load-balanced pool.
> 

That sounds fine to me, but is it really _that_ slow?

Regards,
Ed


> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:11:27 +0900, David Morton <mortonda@dgrmm.net> wrote:
> > I'm having a heck of a time justifying ruby/rails dues to speed issues.
> >
> > I just downloaded rails 0.6, unpacked, changed #! lines to point to my
> > path, and then:
> >
> > #-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ../script/new_controller test index
> > /usr/sbin/ab2 -n 1000 -c 10 http://rails/fcgi/test/index
> > ....
> > Requests per second:    19.17 [#/sec] (mean)
> > Time per request:       521.568 [ms] (mean)
> > #--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Out of the box, it can't even handle 2 requests per second. (divide by
> > 10 fcgi processes running)
> >
> > My server is old, but not that old: 1Ghz athlon with 768M RAM
> >
> > Serving static requests, I get:
> >
> > #---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > /usr/sbin/ab2 -n 1000 -c 10 http://www.dgrmm.net/
> >
> > Requests per second:    189.65 [#/sec] (mean)
> > Time per request:       52.728 [ms] (mean)
> > #---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > That makes it 10 times slower than static.  Obviously, it will be
> > slower, but is this reasonable?  Any ideas on how to make this better?
> >
> > I'm running on a mostly pristine Suse 9.1.
> >
> >
> 
>