4 ms·
Ah, that explains it. Pretty massive difference really. I guess that makes Torquebox+JRuby the best way to run ruby code? I wonder why the RoR community general
by RyanZAG 13y ago
Ah, that explains it. Pretty massive difference really. I guess that makes Torquebox+JRuby the best way to run ruby code? I wonder why the RoR community generally ignores it? Maybe it's just a timing thing and as more companies learn about Torquebox they will swap?
- sluukkonen 13y agoI'd wager that it's the TB/Undertow code running most of the time on that benchmark. On real-world benchmarks the difference is going to be a lot smaller. Not saying that you shouldn't run your JRuby apps on Torquebox - it's a great choice.
- bhauer 13y agoIndeed. In our tests, the plain Rack implementation is extremely impressive, but that is probably because there is so little Ruby code being run [1]. By contrast, the Rails implementation on JRuby is just a bit better than plain Ruby, but that is an improvement versus our previous rounds that were not using TorqBox. Previously, we had been using JRuby deployed on Resin, and the results put that JRuby+Rails combination slightly slower than plain Ruby+Rails. For what it's worth, Resin is fast as far as Java Servlet containers go. Since TorqBox/TorqueBox 3 is very new, I don't suspect it's being used much yet. [1] https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/master/rack/config.ru https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast...