World: r3wp
[!Cheyenne] Discussions about the Cheyenne Web Server
older newer | first last |
Graham 11-Oct-2006 [88] | And thank goodness it's not LGPL or variant |
Maxim 11-Oct-2006 [89] | and capacity? benchmarks? any measurable (known/REBOL) limits? |
Graham 11-Oct-2006 [90] | Will did some benchmarks once ... |
Dockimbel 11-Oct-2006 [91] | Maxim: Cheyenne is scalable. I've tested it with 500 simultaneous connections without noticing problems. It needs to be tested deeper, I dont know the current real limits (It should be limited only by available memory and cpu power). |
Graham 11-Oct-2006 [92] | Will "Mike, I started using Apache and rebol as cgi, this is not suited for performances as on every call to the cgi, a new instance of rebol is initialized, run and closed. I thought about using fastcgi, but never came to a working solution. Now I use uniserve as main webserver, here some advantages: -it is fast! On my local machine I get +- 600 req/sec for static pages and a max of 160req/sec for dynamic rsp pages -it is written in rebol, I could easly(less than 10 lines code) add a rewrite engine -child process are persistent, this mean you can keep state of your web applications, implement caching, keep a pool of connection to databases open (in apache + rebol/cgi you'd have to open and close the connection for every request) -it is written by Dock whom I may be the biggest fan ;-) btw I'm running an unreleased version (have bought commercial support) that support http 1.1, stuff like If-Modified etc.. If you have more specific questions, I'll be glad to try and answer." |
Maxim 11-Oct-2006 [93] | thanks. at least I know it does not suffer from the 50 tcp connection limit of REBOL which some people have report IIRC. |
Dockimbel 11-Oct-2006 [94x4] | I did some bench with Apache 2.0 a few month ago: results were showing 10% slower than Apache for small files, and 20-30% faster for > 64kb files. Theses results are very encouraging given the fact that Apache is compiled C while Cheyenne is interpreted REBOL. |
If someone is willing to make new benchs, I'll be very glad to see the results. | |
Btw, there's still some space for speed improvements. | |
Marteen: Thansk for using your "red phone" ;-) | |
Terry 11-Oct-2006 [98] | Doing a quick ('n dirty) benchmark.. |
Maxim 11-Oct-2006 [99x2] | dock, is the rebcode test version of rebol compatible with cheyenne? |
(sorry, I meant 'doc ) | |
Dockimbel 11-Oct-2006 [101x2] | Marteen: I'll add a small Database abstraction layer for RSP: so I'll include both mysql and pgsql drivers once this feature added. |
Rebcode: don't know if it's compatible with this kernel version, didn't tried. | |
Maxim 11-Oct-2006 [103] | I'll add a remark module for it :-) its adds dialected tags to html, sort of a functional approach to web. |
Terry 11-Oct-2006 [104] | Running Apache and Cheyenne on my IPOD nano.. Using a simple rebol 'read'' loop (10,000 hits) to a 4kb static page (localhost). Apache - 1:41 Cheyenne - 0:52 |
Dockimbel 11-Oct-2006 [105] | Graham: you did a very good job with your WebMail. I wish the new RSP API and features would allow you to finish the work and release it ! |
Terry 11-Oct-2006 [106] | cheyenne nearly twice as fast |
Dockimbel 11-Oct-2006 [107] | Good news! Thanks Terry ! |
Maxim 11-Oct-2006 [108] | does cheyenne handle http 1.0 and 1.1 transparently (expecting yes, but need a specific answer)? |
Dockimbel 11-Oct-2006 [109x2] | But a more elaborate benchmark may show closer results between these too. Size of files and OS have big impacts on the results. |
1.0 & 1.1 : yes | |
Henrik 11-Oct-2006 [111] | dockimbel, I assume the benchmarks improve when caching is used? |
Dockimbel 11-Oct-2006 [112x2] | but not exaustively tested yet. The unit tests are still under development |
Caching is on, by default, for files < 16kb | |
Terry 11-Oct-2006 [114x2] | another testapp bug.. now the 16RSP won't fire, sends me back to login (previous error message is gone, and works fine with 4RSP) |
Ok, working now.. had to clear the cookies | |
Dockimbel 11-Oct-2006 [116] | Sessions are not yet completly stable. |
Maxim 11-Oct-2006 [117] | does fast-cgi need /command license? |
Dockimbel 11-Oct-2006 [118x2] | No, it's a client implementation of my own (/Command implements a server-side FastCGI protocol) |
Terry: this bug has been noted and will be fixed in next release. | |
Maxim 11-Oct-2006 [120] | thanks... so far, if everything works without bugs, I think you just made yourself a new user, I'll be testing it tomorrow. |
Dockimbel 11-Oct-2006 [121] | HTTP support is stable, CGI are ok, RSP too, just avoid sessions for now. Next release will bring a complete rewrite of the session support for faster and more stable behaviour. |
Maxim 11-Oct-2006 [122] | hum... there is one thing I am not sure I get, what do you mean by "server-side" (do you imply your's is not, and if so what does that really mean?) |
Graham 11-Oct-2006 [123] | session support is still buggy ?? not what I wanted to hear :( |
Maxim 11-Oct-2006 [124] | doc, what timeframe between releases? days, weeks, months? |
Terry 11-Oct-2006 [125] | Any php examples? |
Dockimbel 11-Oct-2006 [126x2] | I should be able to make small releases each week (mainly bugfixes) and release monthly new features. It's the rate of release that I've doing since a year now (for a few ppl and customers). |
Terry: Any php script would work, you just have to connect a php exe compiled with fastcgi support. I'll give more info on how to setup such config once the fastcgi module will go beta. I plan to bundle a php exe with the binary Cheyenne with no setup needs for end user. | |
Will 11-Oct-2006 [128] | Terry, how do you run Cheyenne on an iPod? |
Terry 11-Oct-2006 [129x2] | 'from' would be a better term |
the ipod acts as a HD | |
Will 11-Oct-2006 [131] | Ah! ok 8) |
Dockimbel 11-Oct-2006 [132x2] | Graham: yes it still has some issues, that's why I'm working on a new implementation that should fix all problems. That's my first priority for Cheyenne. |
Session support would have been so much more easier to add if REBOL had multithreading... | |
Maarten 11-Oct-2006 [134] | Doc: is sessions support not very easily added if you do it from the db-abastraction layer. Much more scalable as well |
Dockimbel 11-Oct-2006 [135x3] | Marteen: the main issue is more about synchronization between 2 or more REBOL processes to avoid the modification of the same session data at the same time... |
Storing session data in a DB might be an interesting solution, but it will be slower than the current native approach. | |
I've setup a Blog for Cheyenne by adapting Carl's one : http://softinnov.org/cheyenne/blog.cgi | |
older newer | first last |