3 ms·
Are there any unbiased comparisons of Resin and other app servers? The only source for their claims of better performance is their own benchmark of serving what
by ampersandy 13y ago
Are there any unbiased comparisons of Resin and other app servers? The only source for their claims of better performance is their own benchmark of serving what seem to be static files. [0] A discussion of it pointed out that the comparison is totally moot, since Resin caches 1k files (and thus outperforms Nginx for that metric), but otherwise is pretty similar for larger files. [1]
[0] http://www.slideshare.net/billdigman/resin-outperforms-nginx http://www.slideshare.net/billdigman/resin-outperforms-nginx
[1] https://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/4404987 https://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/4404987
- bhauer 13y agoWe use Resin as the Java Servlet container for plain Servlet and most of the Servlet-derived frameworks in our benchmarks [1]. Incidentally, benchmarking static delivery of larger files on modern hardware is a bit uninteresting since it's relatively trivial to saturate gigabit Ethernet. [1] http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/ http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/
- jmspring 13y agoUsed Quercus (the actual php -> java bridge) years ago. I can't recall exact numbers, but generally was about 50-80% faster than the same php based site using a well tuned xcache install (ie, both avoiding the file load/compile). Ran it using resin, tomcat, glass fish, and jboss. No real difference by app server. That said, the biggest issue is always site design. Page too big, too many queries, too many assets loaded, etc. will not benefit much from Quercus or any similar technology.