Pharo 1.1.1 and Cog?
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hi,
I see that Pharo (in 1.1.1) is getting prepared for Cog VM. Is there also some progress with support for Seaside? rush http://www.cloud208.com/ _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
Sure, the one-click images run on Cog.
Lukas On 12 October 2010 09:24, Davorin Rusevljan <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, > > I see that Pharo (in 1.1.1) is getting prepared for Cog VM. Is there also > some progress with support for Seaside? > > rush > http://www.cloud208.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]> wrote: Sure, the one-click images run on Cog. whoha, that is great! How does it stack up regarding seaside performance when compared to classic VM? Any stability issues? rush http://www.cloud208.com/ _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
Komanche is kind of slow as a web server on Cog (slower than on a
normal VM). I suspect that this is because of DynamicBindings that do a lot of ugly stack trickery. We need to replace or fix Komanche in that regard. I don't know the state of the Zn-Server? Philippe? Seaside itself is fast, noticeably faster. Lukas On 12 October 2010 09:32, Davorin Rusevljan <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Sure, the one-click images run on Cog. >> > > whoha, that is great! How does it stack up regarding seaside performance > when compared to classic VM? Any stability issues? > > rush > http://www.cloud208.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Pharo 1.1.1 and Cog?
|
|
End of august I wrote:
I did a quick benchmark on that last image: where I used to get 70 requests/second I now get 230 requests/second. Nothing scientific, but Komanche+Seaside3 on Cog was almost 3 times faster... Sven On 12 Oct 2010, at 09:38, Lukas Renggli wrote: > Komanche is kind of slow as a web server on Cog (slower than on a > normal VM). I suspect that this is because of DynamicBindings that do > a lot of ugly stack trickery. We need to replace or fix Komanche in > that regard. I don't know the state of the Zn-Server? Philippe? > > Seaside itself is fast, noticeably faster. > > Lukas > > On 12 October 2010 09:32, Davorin Rusevljan <[hidden email]> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Sure, the one-click images run on Cog. >>> >> >> whoha, that is great! How does it stack up regarding seaside performance >> when compared to classic VM? Any stability issues? >> >> rush >> http://www.cloud208.com/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> seaside mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside >> >> > > > > -- > Lukas Renggli > www.lukas-renggli.ch > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
The user experience in pharo is also much much better. It feels a lot
snappier. Without the cogvm, i feel like my computer is to slow, although it runs Bioshock 2 at 1920x1200 at full detail. 2010/10/12 Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]>: > End of august I wrote: > > I did a quick benchmark on that last image: where I used to get 70 requests/second I now get 230 requests/second. > > Nothing scientific, but Komanche+Seaside3 on Cog was almost 3 times faster... > > Sven > > On 12 Oct 2010, at 09:38, Lukas Renggli wrote: > >> Komanche is kind of slow as a web server on Cog (slower than on a >> normal VM). I suspect that this is because of DynamicBindings that do >> a lot of ugly stack trickery. We need to replace or fix Komanche in >> that regard. I don't know the state of the Zn-Server? Philippe? >> >> Seaside itself is fast, noticeably faster. >> >> Lukas >> >> On 12 October 2010 09:32, Davorin Rusevljan <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Sure, the one-click images run on Cog. >>>> >>> >>> whoha, that is great! How does it stack up regarding seaside performance >>> when compared to classic VM? Any stability issues? >>> >>> rush >>> http://www.cloud208.com/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> seaside mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Lukas Renggli >> www.lukas-renggli.ch >> _______________________________________________ >> seaside mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote: End of august I wrote: I guess this will bring smile on the face of folks who host more active sites :) rush http://www.cloud208.com/ _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
> End of august I wrote: > > I did a quick benchmark on that last image: where I used to get 70 requests/second I now get 230 requests/second. That's really interesting. Our benchmark showed almost no speedup at all for Kom + Seaside3 with Cog. What was your benchmark like? Levente > > Nothing scientific, but Komanche+Seaside3 on Cog was almost 3 times faster... > > Sven > > On 12 Oct 2010, at 09:38, Lukas Renggli wrote: > >> Komanche is kind of slow as a web server on Cog (slower than on a >> normal VM). I suspect that this is because of DynamicBindings that do >> a lot of ugly stack trickery. We need to replace or fix Komanche in >> that regard. I don't know the state of the Zn-Server? Philippe? >> >> Seaside itself is fast, noticeably faster. >> >> Lukas >> >> On 12 October 2010 09:32, Davorin Rusevljan <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Sure, the one-click images run on Cog. >>>> >>> >>> whoha, that is great! How does it stack up regarding seaside performance >>> when compared to classic VM? Any stability issues? >>> >>> rush >>> http://www.cloud208.com/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> seaside mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Lukas Renggli >> www.lukas-renggli.ch >> _______________________________________________ >> seaside mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by drush66
We just switched to Cog last week.
All requests in our application (NeXTPLAN) run 5 times faster using Pharo1.1.1 and Cog. Needless to say: it's great work!! On 12 Oct 2010, at 09:32, Davorin Rusevljan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]> wrote: > Sure, the one-click images run on Cog. > > > whoha, that is great! How does it stack up regarding seaside performance when compared to classic VM? Any stability issues? > > rush > http://www.cloud208.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
I measured roughly 3x speedup with latest Seaside build from hudson
and the original Kom Server. The test URL is the multi-counter application with the first counter incremented to 2. The identical image is used for both benchmarks. ab -n 1000 "http://127.0.0.1:8080/examples/multicounter?_s=WVGQTRo_5ZeqD-lv&_k=-P9AttB0aDi4r3B-" Using concurrent requests (e.g. with "-c 10") decreases the speedup (e.g. Cog is 2x faster). Replacing the original Kom with a Kom that doesn't use DynamicBindings increases the speedup slightly. == with Cog =========================================================== Server Software: KomHttpServer/7.1.3 Server Hostname: 127.0.0.1 Server Port: 8080 Document Path: /examples/multicounter?_s=WVGQTRo_5ZeqD-lv&_k=-P9AttB0aDi4r3B- Document Length: 2435 bytes Concurrency Level: 1 Time taken for tests: 2.178 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 4 (Connect: 0, Receive: 0, Length: 4, Exceptions: 0) Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 2610004 bytes HTML transferred: 2435004 bytes Requests per second: 459.21 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 2.178 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 2.178 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 1170.44 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 0 0.1 0 1 Processing: 2 2 0.8 2 19 Waiting: 0 2 0.9 2 17 Total: 2 2 0.8 2 19 == without Cog ========================================================== Server Software: KomHttpServer/7.1.3 Server Hostname: 127.0.0.1 Server Port: 8080 Document Path: /examples/multicounter?_s=iioGgbY2Pks-Qo9Q&_k=1D8QQU3FOzmM3-ia Document Length: 2435 bytes Concurrency Level: 1 Time taken for tests: 7.213 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 4 (Connect: 0, Receive: 0, Length: 4, Exceptions: 0) Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 2610008 bytes HTML transferred: 2435008 bytes Requests per second: 138.63 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 7.213 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 7.213 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 353.34 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 0 0.1 0 1 Processing: 6 7 3.3 7 106 Waiting: 0 7 3.3 7 101 Total: 6 7 3.3 7 107 ============================================================= On 12 October 2010 15:58, Johan Brichau <[hidden email]> wrote: > We just switched to Cog last week. > > All requests in our application (NeXTPLAN) run 5 times faster using Pharo1.1.1 and Cog. > > Needless to say: it's great work!! > > > On 12 Oct 2010, at 09:32, Davorin Rusevljan wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Sure, the one-click images run on Cog. >> >> >> whoha, that is great! How does it stack up regarding seaside performance when compared to classic VM? Any stability issues? >> >> rush >> http://www.cloud208.com/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> seaside mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Pharo 1.1.1 and Cog?
|
|
In reply to this post by Levente Uzonyi-2
Levente,
On 12 Oct 2010, at 15:42, Levente Uzonyi wrote: That's really interesting. Our benchmark showed almost no speedup at all for Kom + Seaside3 with Cog. What was your benchmark like? Using the latest Seaside 3 nightly build (from http://hudson.lukas-renggli.ch/), using MC to get my DWBench benchmark (essentially a dynamically generated 25 by 25 products table of about 8Kb) from the ADayAtTheBeach project on SqueakSource, I get the following results: Old VM (Squeak 4.2.5beta1U on MacOSX) [sven@voyager:~]$ ab -d -n 64 -c 4 http://127.0.0.1:8080/DW-Bench This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 655654 $> Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/ Licensed to The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/ Benchmarking 127.0.0.1 (be patient).....done Server Software: KomHttpServer/7.1.3 Server Hostname: 127.0.0.1 Server Port: 8080 Document Path: /DW-Bench Document Length: 8899 bytes Concurrency Level: 4 Time taken for tests: 0.912 seconds Complete requests: 64 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 580736 bytes HTML transferred: 569536 bytes Requests per second: 70.14 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 57.030 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 14.257 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 621.53 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 0 1.3 0 10 Processing: 15 56 15.3 55 109 Waiting: 15 55 15.3 55 109 Total: 15 56 15.3 55 109 New VM (Squeak 5.8b12 on MacOSX) This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 655654 $> Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/ Licensed to The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/ Benchmarking 127.0.0.1 (be patient).....done Server Software: KomHttpServer/7.1.3 Server Hostname: 127.0.0.1 Server Port: 8080 Document Path: /DW-Bench Document Length: 8899 bytes Concurrency Level: 4 Time taken for tests: 0.301 seconds Complete requests: 64 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 580736 bytes HTML transferred: 569536 bytes Requests per second: 212.74 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 18.802 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 4.701 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 1885.14 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 0 0.1 0 1 Processing: 4 18 2.6 19 21 Waiting: 4 18 2.6 19 21 Total: 4 18 2.6 19 21 Now, this is actually a (concurrent) session creation benchmark if you think about it. ab and almost all other benchmark tools have a really hard time to track seaside sessions. But the request handling is real, as is the actual speedup. Sven _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Lukas Renggli
On 10/12/2010 12:27 AM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
> Sure, the one-click images run on Cog. > > Lukas The one click is great for playing around, but how do I setup this up on a headless server? What's the proper way to manually install binaries for those of us accustomed to package manager? -- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Pharo 1.1.1 and Cog?
|
|
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ramon you just need to use the image inside that one click, or build your own on top of PharoCore 1.1.1. Then, you can just use the latest binaries from Eliot: http://www.mirandabanda.org/files/Cog/VM/ 2316 seems the last one right now. Cheers Mariano -- _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5
>> Sure, the one-click images run on Cog.
>> >> Lukas > > The one click is great for playing around, but how do I setup this up on a > headless server? What's the proper way to manually install binaries for > those of us accustomed to package manager? I am not really sure about that. Check the Cog distribution <http://www.mirandabanda.org/files/Cog/VM>. If you haven't saved the image with a Cog VM you can still use the image with an old VM too. Lukas -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mariano Martinez Peck
On 10/12/2010 3:06 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
> Ramon you just need to use the image inside that one click, or build > your own on top of PharoCore 1.1.1. > > Then, you can just use the latest binaries from Eliot: > http://www.mirandabanda.org/files/Cog/VM/ > > 2316 seems the last one right now. Neither the image or the binaries are the issue. There's no install script, so what I was asking was what's the proper way to manually install the binaries into the system. Though I can find no instructions, it looks lik you just untar the whole thing to /usr/local/, seems to work anyway. -- Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mariano Martinez Peck
2010/10/13 Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]>:
> > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> >> On 10/12/2010 12:27 AM, Lukas Renggli wrote: >>> >>> Sure, the one-click images run on Cog. >>> >>> Lukas >> >> The one click is great for playing around, but how do I setup this up on a >> headless server? What's the proper way to manually install binaries for >> those of us accustomed to package manager? >> > > Ramon you just need to use the image inside that one click, or build your > own on top of PharoCore 1.1.1. Do you no longer need the changeset? Cheers Philippe _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
>> Ramon you just need to use the image inside that one click, or build your
>> own on top of PharoCore 1.1.1. > > Do you no longer need the changeset? No, not with Pharo 1.1.1. All Hudson builds are based on PharoCore 1.1.1, so they work out of the box on Cog. Lukas -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
2010/10/13 Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]>:
>>> Ramon you just need to use the image inside that one click, or build your >>> own on top of PharoCore 1.1.1. >> >> Do you no longer need the changeset? > > No, not with Pharo 1.1.1. All Hudson builds are based on PharoCore > 1.1.1, so they work out of the box on Cog. They need Cog in that case or did I miss something? Cheers Philippe _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
Hi Philippe,
On 13 Oct 2010, at 10:23, Philippe Marschall wrote: > 2010/10/13 Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]>: >>>> Ramon you just need to use the image inside that one click, or build your >>>> own on top of PharoCore 1.1.1. >>> >>> Do you no longer need the changeset? >> >> No, not with Pharo 1.1.1. All Hudson builds are based on PharoCore >> 1.1.1, so they work out of the box on Cog. > > They need Cog in that case or did I miss something? The Pharo 1.1.1 image can be run with both the regular and Cog VM. It's only after you save the image with Cog that you cannot open it with the regular VM. Given that the server of Lukas uses the regular VM at the moment, it means that the resulting images can be opened with both VMs. Cheers, Doru > Cheers > Philippe > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside -- www.tudorgirba.com "Problem solving should be focused on describing the problem in a way that makes the solution obvious." _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
2010/10/13 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:
> Hi Philippe, > > On 13 Oct 2010, at 10:23, Philippe Marschall wrote: > >> 2010/10/13 Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]>: >>>>> Ramon you just need to use the image inside that one click, or build your >>>>> own on top of PharoCore 1.1.1. >>>> >>>> Do you no longer need the changeset? >>> >>> No, not with Pharo 1.1.1. All Hudson builds are based on PharoCore >>> 1.1.1, so they work out of the box on Cog. >> >> They need Cog in that case or did I miss something? > > The Pharo 1.1.1 image can be run with both the regular and Cog VM. It's only after you save the image with Cog that you cannot open it with the regular VM. Given that the server of Lukas uses the regular VM at the moment, it means that the resulting images can be opened with both VMs. IC, thanks for the clarification. Cheers Philippe _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
«
Return to Seaside General
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |