14 ms·
Yeah I don't have an optimal benchmarking setup currently. I have a 16-core CPU that I run everything off (server + benchmarks = not ideal). I've been working
by james_roberts 5y ago
Yeah I don't have an optimal benchmarking setup currently. I have a 16-core CPU that I run everything off (server + benchmarks = not ideal).
I've been working on adding multiprocessing to FastWSGI (only works on Linux at the moment). The RPS almost scales linearly with the number of workers. At 4 processes it hits +260k RPS with decent CPU utilization.
I can definitely add more details to the benchmarks. Thanks for the feedback!
- necovek 5y agoIt's more of a question how other tools need to be configured to get a similar CPU utilization, and what RPS would they hit in that case? I'd create a VM that you can load sufficiently well with FastWSGI, but other tools might need more worker threads or worker processes added to put the same load on that VM. Basically, what matters practically is what's the maximum you can pull out of this hardware (whatever the configuration is)? Those are then really comparable.
- james_roberts 5y agoThanks for the advice! I'll try this out
- necovek 5y agoIdeally, it turns out that all those other tools load the same hardware just the same, but they simply suck compared to FastWSGI. Then we can all get collectively excited :)