[aida] Swazoo vs. Apache benchmarks

Nicholas Moore nicholas.moore at tsr-i.com
Sun Feb 10 19:24:46 CET 2008


Did you compare Swazoo and Apache only? I would be interested in the
comparison between Swazoo (pure) and Swazoo sitting behind Apache (which
is what I have) because that is my actual choice. My guess is that pure
Swazoo might be faster! (for me).

My present configuration is okay (Apache serving vhosts in Swazoo (VW
image) but I would prefer to have just one application (Smalltalk) to
pay attention to, for all kinds of reasons to do with competence,
complexity and elegance.


Janko Mivšek wrote:
> Dear Web Smalltalkers,
> In light of our last debate about Swazoo in comparison to Apache and out 
> of curiosity I did some benchmarks of them to clarify our position on 
> the web serving scene. Here are the preliminary results in a table:
> 	http://www.swazoo.org/benchmarks/swazoo-vs-apache.html
> As you see Swazoo is not bad at all, only 4x slower from Apache on small 
> files on VW! On Squeak it is 18x slower. For a 100KB file VW it is 12x 
> slower while Squeak is 40x.
> I did benchmarking on Gemstone too but those results are currently quite 
> disappointing. Probably because Hyper is not so optimized as the new 
> Swazoo 2 HTTP server, so that porting a new Swazoo there would help too.
> I think we can conclude that Swazoo (at least on VW for now) is actually 
> able to serve quite demanding web sites, but as we already said, Swazoo 
> is not there to compete with Apache but to be a simple starting step, 
> which can later evolve if needed to the most demanding serving on Apache.
> Best regards
> Janko


*Nicholas J Moore*

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aidaweb.si/pipermail/aida/attachments/20080210/cab10abe/attachment.htm 

More information about the Aida mailing list