Swazoo vs. Apache benchmarks

Dear Web Smalltalkers,

In light of our last debate about Swazoo in comparison to Apache and out
of curiosity I did some benchmarks of them to clarify our position on
the web serving scene. Here are the preliminary results in a table:

        http://www.swazoo.org/benchmarks/swazoo-vs-apache.html

As you see Swazoo is not bad at all, only 4x slower from Apache on small
files on VW! On Squeak it is 18x slower. For a 100KB file VW it is 12x
slower while Squeak is 40x.

I did benchmarking on Gemstone too but those results are currently quite
disappointing. Probably because Hyper is not so optimized as the new
Swazoo 2 HTTP server, so that porting a new Swazoo there would help too.

I think we can conclude that Swazoo (at least on VW for now) is actually
able to serve quite demanding web sites, but as we already said, Swazoo
is not there to compete with Apache but to be a simple starting step,
which can later evolve if needed to the most demanding serving on Apache.

Best regards
Janko

--
Janko Mivšek
AIDA/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si
_______________________________________________
Aida mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida

Janko,

Did you compare Swazoo and Apache only? I would be interested in the comparison between Swazoo (pure) and Swazoo sitting behind Apache (which is what I have) because that is my actual choice. My guess is that pure Swazoo might be faster! (for me).

My present configuration is okay (Apache serving vhosts in Swazoo (VW image) but I would prefer to have just one application (Smalltalk) to pay attention to, for all kinds of reasons to do with competence, complexity and elegance.

Nicholas


Janko Mivšek wrote:

Dear Web Smalltalkers,

In light of our last debate about Swazoo in comparison to Apache and out 
of curiosity I did some benchmarks of them to clarify our position on 
the web serving scene. Here are the preliminary results in a table:

	http://www.swazoo.org/benchmarks/swazoo-vs-apache.html

As you see Swazoo is not bad at all, only 4x slower from Apache on small 
files on VW! On Squeak it is 18x slower. For a 100KB file VW it is 12x 
slower while Squeak is 40x.

I did benchmarking on Gemstone too but those results are currently quite 
disappointing. Probably because Hyper is not so optimized as the new 
Swazoo 2 HTTP server, so that porting a new Swazoo there would help too.

I think we can conclude that Swazoo (at least on VW for now) is actually 
able to serve quite demanding web sites, but as we already said, Swazoo 
is not there to compete with Apache but to be a simple starting step, 
which can later evolve if needed to the most demanding serving on Apache.

Best regards
Janko

  

_______________________________________________
Aida mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida