Performace...

[John Von Essen <jo...@essenz.com>]

Im curious as to the difference in performance when using perl scripts with
Apache::Registry or writing complete Apache Modules in Perl that conform to
the API?

-jve

Re: Performace...

[Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>]

> Im curious as to the difference in performance when using perl scripts
with
> Apache::Registry or writing complete Apache Modules in Perl that
conform to
> the API?

Check the list archives for benchmarks by Joshua Chamas.  Note that
there are other reasons to use handlers instead of Registry, which you
will also find in the archives.

- Perrin

Re: Performace...

[Joshua Chamas <jo...@chamas.com>]

Kee Hinckley wrote:
> 
> At 2:27 PM -0500 3/23/02, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> >
> >you might be interested in Joshua Chamas' ongoing benchmark project:
> >
> >http://mathforum.org/epigone/modperl/sercrerdprou/3A56F551.4EADEB43@chamas.com
> >http://www.chamas.com/bench/
> >
> >he has the results from a benchmark of Apache::Registry and plain
> >handlers, as well as comparisons between HTML::Mason, Embperl, and
> >other templating engines.
> 
> Although there are lots of qualifiers on those benchmarks, I consider
> them rather dangerous anyway.  They are "Hello World" benchmarks, in
> which startup time completely dominates the time. The things that
> distinguish more sophisticated solutions from basic CGI or even
> modules are elements such as caching, pre-compiling and other
> techniques directly aimed at improving real-world performance.  Hello
> World isn't going to show those at all.

The mathforum link above points to more recent results which includes
an h2000 test which is a more complex 3K+ script producing 20K+ in output.
You will see in those results Embperl getting near the same performance
as PHP. 

I would agree, the normal "hello world" test does not go far to measure
the runtime characteristics of web application environment.  To this
end I would like to do things like database benchmarks scripts too for
the various environments, but it will be a long time in coming as it
is a lot of work to set up these tests.  You can get the latest 
benchmarks at http://www.chamas.com/bench/hello.tar.gz

The results posted at chamas.com/bench are older which were
compiled from various system from various people at various times,
and have not been updated in quite some time (my bad). The downloadable 
benchmarks are ones that you can run yourself which generally 
produces the most relevant results.

--Josh
_________________________________________________________________
Joshua Chamas                           Chamas Enterprises Inc.
NodeWorks Founder                       Huntington Beach, CA  USA 
http://www.nodeworks.com                1-714-625-4051

Re: Performace...

[Ed Grimm <ed...@tgape.org>]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Kee Hinckley wrote:
> At 2:27 PM -0500 3/23/02, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>>
>>you might be interested in Joshua Chamas' ongoing benchmark project:
>>
>>http://mathforum.org/epigone/modperl/sercrerdprou/3A56F551.4EADEB43@chamas.com
>>http://www.chamas.com/bench/
>>
>>he has the results from a benchmark of Apache::Registry and plain 
>>handlers, as well as comparisons between HTML::Mason, Embperl, and 
>>other templating engines.
> 
> Although there are lots of qualifiers on those benchmarks, I consider 
> them rather dangerous anyway.  They are "Hello World" benchmarks, in 
> which startup time completely dominates the time. The things that 

That explains why Embperl did so poorly compared to PHP, yet when we
replaced our PHP pages with Embperl, our benchmarks using real user
queries, sending the same queries through the old and new pages, the new
pages showed a 50% performance boost.

Note: that gain was enough to saturate our test network.  Our purpose
for the benchmark was to determine if it was an improvement or not, not
to determine the exact improvement, so we don't really know what the
real gain was.  The same machines do several other tasks, and our
monitoring at the time of change was not very sophisticated, so we only
really know it was a big win.  Something on the order of 37 load issues
the week before the change, most of which were fairly obviously web
overload, and two the week after (those two being very obviously
associated with other services the boxes are running.)

Ed

Re: Performace...

[Kee Hinckley <na...@somewhere.com>]

At 2:27 PM -0500 3/23/02, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
>you might be interested in Joshua Chamas' ongoing benchmark project:
>
>http://mathforum.org/epigone/modperl/sercrerdprou/3A56F551.4EADEB43@chamas.com
>http://www.chamas.com/bench/
>
>he has the results from a benchmark of Apache::Registry and plain 
>handlers, as well as comparisons between HTML::Mason, Embperl, and 
>other templating engines.

Although there are lots of qualifiers on those benchmarks, I consider 
them rather dangerous anyway.  They are "Hello World" benchmarks, in 
which startup time completely dominates the time. The things that 
distinguish more sophisticated solutions from basic CGI or even 
modules are elements such as caching, pre-compiling and other 
techniques directly aimed at improving real-world performance.  Hello 
World isn't going to show those at all.
-- 

Kee Hinckley - Somewhere.Com, LLC
http://consulting.somewhere.com/
nazgul@somewhere.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.

Re: Performace...

[Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>]

John Von Essen wrote:

> Im curious as to the difference in performance when using perl scripts with
> Apache::Registry or writing complete Apache Modules in Perl that conform to
> the API?


straight mod_perl handlers are faster than Apache::Registry, but they lack some 
of the convenience that you might be looking for in an application that has lots 
of dynamic components.

you might be interested in Joshua Chamas' ongoing benchmark project:

http://mathforum.org/epigone/modperl/sercrerdprou/3A56F551.4EADEB43@chamas.com
http://www.chamas.com/bench/

he has the results from a benchmark of Apache::Registry and plain handlers, as 
well as comparisons between HTML::Mason, Embperl, and other templating engines.

HTH

--Geoff