From: Carl Youngblood Date: 2004-08-19T04:55:18+09:00 Subject: Re: [RAILS] way too slow... I haven't tried it with fcgi yet, so I can't tell you. Sorry. On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:48:44 +0900, Edgardo Hames wrote: > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:28:49 +0900, Carl Youngblood > 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 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. > > > > > > > > > > > >