5 ms·

Is that seriously a performance issue for any real webapp?

by pstrateman 12y ago

eudox 12y ago
Small things add up.
- troels 12y ago
  They also add complexity. So the implied question is - is it worth it?
  - pedro93 12y ago
    When you use pcre in python or ruby, do you worry about the complexity? pcre and language VMs are also implemented in C/C++. If we consider complexity before everything, we must use PHP to implement an OS. :-p
nkozyra 12y ago
It could be if a router/mux is regexp bound and contains a lot of and/or complex patterns.
- tinco 12y ago
  In that case a C implementation would not help, most languages already use C implementations of their regex engines.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
evmar 12y ago
(Pre-disclaimer: I think it's great that the author spent some time benchmarking and hacking, and I don't mean for this comment to tear down their work, but rather I'm just answering the above question which was also the first thing that came to my mind when I saw this.) The slowest URL router benchmarked there[1] does 10462.0 runs per second, which is just under 0.1ms per run. I'm not sure what performance is expected of Rails handlers but the first stackoverflow thread[2] that came up on a simple Google search had twitter doing 600 req/s across 180 instances which comes to 300ms per request. By that math, the slowest URL router costs 0.033% of the request overhead. Caveat: 300ms/req is slower than you'd like for an interactive website; real websites may have more complicated routing tables than this benchmark. Counter-caveat: 0.1ms is not enough to matter pretty much anywhere except for the stock market. [1]: https://github.com/c9s/r3#benchmark https://github.com/c9s/r3#benchmark [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/373098/whats-the-average-requests-per-second-for-a-production-web-application http://stackoverflow.com/questions/373098/whats-the-average-...
- pushrax 12y ago
  In addition, if you were to replace the Rails router with a Ruby trie implementation, it would be even faster. (not that this is encouraged)
  - sjtgraham 12y ago
    I wrote the trie implementation referenced in the benchmarks. I didn't do it for speed, I did it because I couldn't add the router functionality I needed using the existing underlying implementation.
    - pushrax 12y ago
      Cool, nice work! I didn't actually look at the benchmark and was just making (perhaps poor) assumptions. I'd imagine it does come with a nice little performance boost though?
- virtualwhys 12y ago
  The linked SO answer is fairly dated (2011), Twitter is able to handle bursts of up @140K req/s (with Scala) as of last year[1] Assume Rails has improved hugely since then, 600 req/s over 180 instances is absolutely abysmal performance O_o I'd expect Rails to clock in well under 300ms per request now, and looking at Basecamp's site[2], that seems to be the case, impressively snappy page loads (if caching the kitchen sink and not hitting live Rails stack then we'd need to look at a different example, but this site has pretty much optimal load time). [1] https://blog.twitter.com/2013/new-tweets-per-second-record-and-how https://blog.twitter.com/2013/new-tweets-per-second-record-a... [2] https://basecamp.com https://basecamp.com
pedro93 12y ago
well, just for fun!
jpgvm 12y ago
Probably not. But it's a very nice library for use in C application with small embedded webserver. This + libev/libuv + the Node.js HTTP parser makes a nice little application server. You shouldn't go replacing your Ruby apps with C but there are many cases were embedding Ruby/Python/etc into your C app just doesn't make sense and this is a good way of bringing nice features from those more webby frameworks to C.

Is that seriously a performance issue for any real webapp?

eudox 12y ago

Small things add up.

troels 12y ago
They also add complexity. So the implied question is - is it worth it?
- pedro93 12y ago
  When you use pcre in python or ruby, do you worry about the complexity? pcre and language VMs are also implemented in C/C++. If we consider complexity before everything, we must use PHP to implement an OS. :-p

nkozyra 12y ago

It could be if a router/mux is regexp bound and contains a lot of and/or complex patterns.

tinco 12y ago
In that case a C implementation would not help, most languages already use C implementations of their regex engines.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

evmar 12y ago

(Pre-disclaimer: I think it's great that the author spent some time benchmarking and hacking, and I don't mean for this comment to tear down their work, but rather I'm just answering the above question which was also the first thing that came to my mind when I saw this.) The slowest URL router benchmarked there[1] does 10462.0 runs per second, which is just under 0.1ms per run. I'm not sure what performance is expected of Rails handlers but the first stackoverflow thread[2] that came up on a simple Google search had twitter doing 600 req/s across 180 instances which comes to 300ms per request. By that math, the slowest URL router costs 0.033% of the request overhead. Caveat: 300ms/req is slower than you'd like for an interactive website; real websites may have more complicated routing tables than this benchmark. Counter-caveat: 0.1ms is not enough to matter pretty much anywhere except for the stock market. [1]: https://github.com/c9s/r3#benchmark https://github.com/c9s/r3#benchmark [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/373098/whats-the-average-requests-per-second-for-a-production-web-application http://stackoverflow.com/questions/373098/whats-the-average-...

pushrax 12y ago
In addition, if you were to replace the Rails router with a Ruby trie implementation, it would be even faster. (not that this is encouraged)
- sjtgraham 12y ago
  I wrote the trie implementation referenced in the benchmarks. I didn't do it for speed, I did it because I couldn't add the router functionality I needed using the existing underlying implementation.
  - pushrax 12y ago
    Cool, nice work! I didn't actually look at the benchmark and was just making (perhaps poor) assumptions. I'd imagine it does come with a nice little performance boost though?
virtualwhys 12y ago
The linked SO answer is fairly dated (2011), Twitter is able to handle bursts of up @140K req/s (with Scala) as of last year[1] Assume Rails has improved hugely since then, 600 req/s over 180 instances is absolutely abysmal performance O_o I'd expect Rails to clock in well under 300ms per request now, and looking at Basecamp's site[2], that seems to be the case, impressively snappy page loads (if caching the kitchen sink and not hitting live Rails stack then we'd need to look at a different example, but this site has pretty much optimal load time). [1] https://blog.twitter.com/2013/new-tweets-per-second-record-and-how https://blog.twitter.com/2013/new-tweets-per-second-record-a... [2] https://basecamp.com https://basecamp.com

pedro93 12y ago

well, just for fun!

jpgvm 12y ago

Probably not. But it's a very nice library for use in C application with small embedded webserver. This + libev/libuv + the Node.js HTTP parser makes a nice little application server. You shouldn't go replacing your Ruby apps with C but there are many cases were embedding Ruby/Python/etc into your C app just doesn't make sense and this is a good way of bringing nice features from those more webby frameworks to C.