[racket] My toy web app's performance: Racket vs Perl vs Ruby

Hi,

Great project and benchmarks.  I, too, want to use Racket Scheme for more
serious projects, and even have my company's go ahead to incorporate it
into our service architecture.   I'm pursuing the mongrel2 option, and I
just produced a beta mongrel2 racket adapter in pursuit of that goal.
https://github.com/neomantic/racket-mongrel2-adapter.  I'll use your work
to give them some performance benchmarks against mongrel2.  Thanks!

Chad


On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM, <joshua at anwu.org> wrote:

>
> Racketeers,
>
> I'm new to the language, and loving it.  I'm having trouble getting good
> performance out of my little toy web app, however.
>
> I wrote this fake billing app to play with some new languages (like
> Racket) and some other webdev ideas I've had (like client-side
> templating with jQuery and mustache).  As such, I have the same JSON api
> written in Perl, Ruby, and Racket (working on node.js
> and Haskell).  Perl runs under Dancer and Starman, ruby under Sinatra and
> Unicorn, and Racket under nohup and its own included webserver.
> All are running on the same machine.  Each connects to a postgres db,
> executes some queries from a config file, and returns JSON
> to the client.
>
> I've been running apache bench against all three, and the performance of
> Racket vs Perl and Ruby has been... disheartening.  I
> compiled the racket code with 'raco exe' before running it, but Perl and
> Ruby both blow it away.  The racket executable also
> seems to grab and hold a lot of memory, even though I told it to be
> stateless.  It also tends to have failures.
>
> ab -c 20 -n 10000 <uri>
>
>
> Perl:
>
> Concurrency Level:      20
> Time taken for tests:   86.100 seconds
> Complete requests:      10000
> Failed requests:        0
> Write errors:           0
> Total transferred:      88150000 bytes
> HTML transferred:       86300000 bytes
> Requests per second:    116.14 [#/sec] (mean)
> Time per request:       172.199 [ms] (mean)
> Time per request:       8.610 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
> Transfer rate:          999.82 [Kbytes/sec] received
>
>
> Ruby:
>
> Concurrency Level:      20
> Time taken for tests:   102.914 seconds
> Complete requests:      10000
> Failed requests:        0
> Write errors:           0
> Total transferred:      88480000 bytes
> HTML transferred:       86050000 bytes
> Requests per second:    97.17 [#/sec] (mean)
> Time per request:       205.827 [ms] (mean)
> Time per request:       10.291 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
> Transfer rate:          839.60 [Kbytes/sec] received
>
>
> Racket:
>
> Concurrency Level:      20
> Time taken for tests:   139.059 seconds
> Complete requests:      10000
> Failed requests:        687
>   (Connect: 0, Receive: 0, Length: 687, Exceptions: 0)
> Write errors:           0
> Total transferred:      9421469 bytes
> HTML transferred:       7100095 bytes
> Requests per second:    71.91 [#/sec] (mean)
> Time per request:       278.119 [ms] (mean)
> Time per request:       13.906 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
> Transfer rate:          66.16 [Kbytes/sec] received
>
>
> I'm hoping it's just inexperience on my part - maybe my Racket code just
> sucks.  Or maybe it's that I'm trying to
> stay functional and avoid mutation, which I don't bother with in the other
> two. Anyone interested in looking at
> the code and telling me what I'm doing wrong, or could do better?  I would
> love to use Racket for more serious
> projects.
>
> https://github.com/TurtleKitty/CalicoBill
>
>
> Thanks,
> TurtleKitty
>
>
>
> ____________________
>  Racket Users list:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20120421/ec2d2674/attachment.html>