Comments on: Yet another Ruby server

By: mod_rails vs thin vs ebb vs mongrel | Arie’s Blog

mod_rails vs thin vs ebb vs mongrel | Arie’s Blog — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:29:25 +0000

[...] the recent release of mod_rails, I thought it was time for yet another benchmark. Mod_rails aims to make deployment of RubyOnRails applications comparable to [...]

By: Arie

Arie — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:27:39 +0000

Great benchmarks Frank. I hadn’t seen a any direct comparisons of these new servers versus Lighttpd+FastCG before.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:01:40 +0000

We had some fun benchmarking thin, ebb, mongrel and direct fastcgi in a few situations (lots of processing, not much processing etc). Read the results at openminds.be An interesting read for those not sure what to use.

By: j4s0n

j4s0n — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 04:08:35 +0000

anyway, nvm the log question. i can just do tail -f development.log

By: j4s0n

j4s0n — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:34:42 +0000

Definitely impressive and super blazing fast. (Except, how can I get back my logs like what we have in mongrel/webrick and others).

@ry: Thanks man.

By: Arie

Arie — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:04:54 +0000

I agree. For this application the database makes up 5% of the request, rendering is the rest. The speed at which Ruby manages to put together a page is the main factor which determines the number of requests per second in this case.

But it’s nice to get ‘free’ performance increases by using better Ruby servers. Thin improved the number of requests per second by 15% compared to mongrel_cluster. Your Ebb server manages to get another 10% on top of Thin.

By: ry

ry — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:57:52 +0000

hi arie, on second thought the results are not surprising. handling sockets is a small part of what goes into a rails request – and a vast majority of the overhead will be seen in database connections and template rendering. i wonder what the situation is with merb.

By: Arie

Arie — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:08:20 +0000

Hi ry, thanks for your comment and for creating Ebb.

The generated HTML:
Page 1: 21084 bytes, rendering took 0.0014s
Page 2: 25909 bytes, rendering took 0.035s
Page 3: 68883 bytes, rendering took 0.190s

The tests were run with ab -n 10000 -c 50

By: ry

ry — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:50:03 +0000

hi Arie,

Interesting – although a bit disappointing for me – I’d like to see it do better. How large is the generated html? This was done with ab? which options did you use? Any idea what the rendering time is?