[Seaside] Comanche or Swazoo for heavy load?
John M McIntosh
johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com
Mon Dec 7 20:00:09 UTC 2009
I took a serious look at this question when I was considering which server to use for WIkiServer on the iPhone
Earlier this year what I found:
Swazoo seemed faster in some cases.
Comanche seemed to produced less garbage thus stressing the GC less.
Neither respected their promise not to cache 500MB images in memory until a few minor fixes where make.
However on the iPhone we discovered that Swazoo would drop a byte or two in the upload/download of
50MB files. We were unable to re-create on faster devices, or to point out exactly where/how it happened.
This problem was packaged up and sent off to the Swazoo support folks, and it could be fixed now?
Or not affect Server based implementations?
Lossing bytes was the show-stopper, otherwise the difference was a wash.
On 2009-12-04, at 9:59 AM, Davorin Rusevljan wrote:
> If licence type is not an issue, which of those two servers is
> recommended on squeak for samller memory footprint and better
> performance (file uploads are not important)?
> Davorin Rusevljan
> seaside mailing list
> seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com> Twitter: squeaker68882
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
More information about the seaside