[Seaside] HTTP Performance

Julian Fitzell julian at beta4.com
Thu Nov 20 04:14:59 CET 2003

Avi Bryant wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2003, at 5:21 PM, Nevin Pratt wrote:
>> Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
>>> That doesn't change the fact that you need a certain level of 
>>> performance to be able to serve public sites. And IMHO the test was 
>>> reasonably fair for all. The goal of the dynamic vs. static page was 
>>> to get an idea of the overhead for dynamic pages.
>> In my experience, a lowly 1.3 Ghz Pentium running Squeak, Comanche, 
>> and Seaside can still overdrive a relatively fast DSL internet pipe.
>> The pipe to the internet is usually the bottleneck.
> I've been doing some benchmarking.  One thing that helped a lot for 
> static pages was terminating the UI process (Project uiProcess 
> terminate).  Note that this will (obviously) make your image 
> unresponsive to the mouse and keyboard, but CPU usage goes down and web 
> performance goes up.  I was able to get over 300 requests per second 
> with a simple static page and Comanche on a 1Ghz G4 Powerbook.  I'd 
> recommend doing this before deploying an image (although maybe there's a 
> more reversible way of getting the same effect?).

Well, as I told you, I discovered the same thing at work when I 
suspended the process.  Am I incorrect in thinking that is more 
reversible?  I still think it must be possible, somehow, to achieve the 
same results by having the UI process NOOP most of what it's doing when 
the VM is using the null display driver or something, but I admit I 
haven't given it much detailed thought...


julian at beta4.com
Beta4 Productions (http://www.beta4.com)

More information about the Seaside mailing list