Camping or Merb

[Eduardo Tongson]
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 

[Sharon Rosner]

My research shows that we will be needing Swiftiplied Mongrel and

should avoid Activerecord (use Og?). The closest frameworks in mind
are Camping and Merb. Which of these two would be the best option for
us?

Have a look at Sequel, a lightweight ORM library for Ruby:

http://code.google.com/p/ruby-sequel/

Sharon

 

[Marcin Raczkowski]

Hi folks,

We will be creating a heavy traffic site that uses Ajax, Flash video
and has heavy persistent database connectivity. Database will be most
probably PostgreSQL.

Usage requires speed close to real time, bandwidth or latency will not
be an issue. I'm pretty sure we can accomplish all of this if we stick
to pure Ruby. But we would like to create it using a web framework and
take advantage of Swiftiply, Erubis, Mongrel etc. .

My research shows that we will be needing Swiftiplied Mongrel and
should avoid Activerecord (use Og?). The closest frameworks in mind
are Camping and Merb. Which of these two would be the best option for
us?

pÇ

Camping is very hard to modify, so merb is probably better choice,
swiftiply is nice but it's new solution and hard to tell how well it
works yet.

anyway i would recommend nginx as load balancer and for serving static
files and flv's, evented mongrel for backend, merb for backend, erubis
for templates, and sequel fro postgresql database - supports connection
pooling and persistent connections.

i tested my own micro-framework based on evented mongrel handlers and it
was working 20 (yes 20) times faster then standard rails setup.

if you are interested in high availbility and perfomance tunning please
contact me.

 

[khaines]

We will be creating a heavy traffic site that uses Ajax, Flash video
and has heavy persistent database connectivity. Database will be most
probably PostgreSQL.

Usage requires speed close to real time, bandwidth or latency will not
be an issue. I'm pretty sure we can accomplish all of this if we stick
to pure Ruby. But we would like to create it using a web framework and
take advantage of Swiftiply, Erubis, Mongrel etc. .

My research shows that we will be needing Swiftiplied Mongrel and
should avoid Activerecord (use Og?). The closest frameworks in mind
are Camping and Merb. Which of these two would be the best option for
us?

I'd suggest looking at Merb, or maybe Ramaze, or my framework, IOWA.
IOWA is definitely the fastest of the bunch. Merb is #2 in speed, is
flexible, and has an active community. Ramaze is a newcomer. It's kind
of to Nitro what Merb is to Rails. It's slower than Merb, but is a very
nice framework with some good ideas.

For ORM layers, you should do some benchmarks. AR is not particularly
fast. Og...might be faster. Maybe not. I'm not really sure. Also check
Sequel and you might try my ORM, Kansas (http://withruby.com/kansas for a
more recent snapshot). It's fairly lightweight and fast, and quite
capable, and has been in active use on production sites for years.

I originally wrote Swiftiply to use with IOWA, so it does work very well
with it. Regardless of what you choose to do, though, feel free to
contact me if you have any questions or need any help.


Kirk Haines

 

[Roger Pack]

so you prefer nginx over swiftiply? Have you tried your mockup with
swiftiply? Just wondering.
-Roger

 

[khaines]

so you prefer nginx over swiftiply? Have you tried your mockup with
swiftiply? Just wondering.

Me?

I wrote Swiftiply, and yes, I use it in lieu of nginx or Apache on several
sites, now.


Kirk Haines

 

[khaines]

If you need SSL, then I believe you will need something like nginx (apache,
lighttpd, pound, etc) to handle the certificates. Also I doubt that you will
beat the speed of nginx for serving static content, so that would also be a
consideration.

Swiftiply has SSL on the horizon. EventMachine will handle SSL
connections, so that is not a problem. There are just a few config
management issues in the way of full fledged support. I have it on my
roadmap for the 0.7.0 release.


Kirk Haines

 

[khaines]

If you need SSL, then I believe you will need something like nginx (apache,
lighttpd, pound, etc) to handle the certificates. Also I doubt that you will
beat the speed of nginx for serving static content, so that would also be a
consideration.

Apologies for the back to back posts. On static file handling, you are
right. nginx is about as fast as it gets. But that's fine. Swiftiply's
static file handling doesn't have to be that fast to be fast enough. My
target range is 8000 to 9000 small static files per second, and at least
100 megabytes per second of data transfer for large static files, on my
test machine. That is the area the threshold that I am working to
continue to meet or beat as I work on Swiftiply. It's not nginx speeds,
but it's better than Apache speeds (out of a single process, too), and
it's fast enough to saturate a gigabit port if one is doing big files, and
a 100mbs port if one is doing small files, so it's fast enough for the
vast majority of deployments.


Kirk Haines

 

[Eduardo Tongson]

How do you use Swiftcore IOWA? Is it better than using IOWA with HA
Proxy with evented mongrel?

BTW http://iowa.swiftcore.org is not responding as of Sat Sep 15
02:16:36 UTC 2007.

 

[Marcin Raczkowski]

I'll try to reply to few previous post here.

I didn't test swiftyply very much, and i didn't do benchmarks comparing
to nginx so i have no idea how speed comparsion looks.

But i DID test nginx vs. apache vs. apache2 vs. light and nginx always
wins

now mongrel vs. evented mongrel - evented mongrel wins BIG

clasic mongrel - forking mongrel (my own modification that makes mongrel
act like apache - fork on request) - a little bit slower then classic,
but for low traffic sites - much better choice then cluster - you only
need one mongrel instance in your memory

mongrel vs. nginx on static files - nginx wins - but it's power is only
needed when working with lots of small files. i also have moded mongrel
that is designed to handle static pages - it allows caching most used
files in memory - like css styles and main page, i'm planing to improve
it with sendfile syscall for speed on files that are not in cache and
mmap on things that are in cache.
BUT all this improving is only for my fun and pleasure becouse you are
more likely to run out of bandwidth before speed will be an issue

now frameworks - i didn't test all and mostly I'm basing this list on my
old benchmarks, what khaines said, and other things found on network
Order from slowest to fastest

- rails
- nitro
- ramazee
- merb - almost 15 times faster then rails in my tests
- iowa

somewhere between merb and iowa probably would be my micro-framework,
still unreleased - but i'm geting into it and it'll be availble this
week i think for alfa

now ORM
- AR
- Og
- Sequel / Kansas - no idea which one is faster i didn't test them

sequel is 2-3 times faster then AR on small and frequent queries, but
have nice features like connection pooling for postgres which gives it
even more advantege.

Okey that would be all in terms of speed, but remember that usually
lower level you work on - more time you spent and more bugs you make, we
were considering using somethning other then rails in our projects and
we found out that if project doesn't REALLY need speed, costs of
adopting new technology, training, testing etc. exceed what we would
save on hardware.

cheers

 

[Roger Pack]

Me?

I wrote Swiftiply, and yes, I use it in lieu of nginx or Apache on
several
sites, now.


Kirk Haines

I guess the concern would be that using swiftiply to handle static
content might be a little slower than nginx. Any thoughts?

If this were a speed problem, a possible fix might be to add to
EventMachine a call along the lines of 'here's a file's path, I want you
to pipe that file to this socket' or something. Then maybe swiftiply
could get about as fast as C based. If it were slower. Just some
random thoughts. Thanks Kirk.

-Roger

 

[khaines]

I guess the concern would be that using swiftiply to handle static
content might be a little slower than nginx. Any thoughts?

If this were a speed problem, a possible fix might be to add to
EventMachine a call along the lines of 'here's a file's path, I want you
to pipe that file to this socket' or something. Then maybe swiftiply
could get about as fast as C based. If it were slower. Just some
random thoughts. Thanks Kirk.

A little slower than nginx can still be very fast.

My design goals are to be in the 8k-9k files per second range on my
development hardware, for small files, and preferably > 120 megabytes per
second for large files.

It is already a somewhat optimized path that lets it be that fast. Part
of what I have been working on over the last month (ugh), along with HTTP
caching support, are some changes to further streamline and optimize that
path. However, after a point, additional speed is mostly irrelevant
because one has already exceeded the bandwidth of one's port. If you have
a 100mbs port, you're going to stream large files at a small percentage of
120 megabytes per second, anyway, and even the typical small image files
that are common on web sites are going to saturate your bandwidth at a
speed less than 8k/second, so the fact that nginx can do 16k/second isn't
so meaningful, most of the time.

That said....I _think_ small files handling may bump up into the 11k to
12k/second range on my hardware. Large file streaming will remain about
the same. I am tinkering with it as I type this, in fact.

I'm also tinkering with a microframework, tentatively labeled Wisteria
(might be something up at wisteria.swiftcore.org later this week), based
off a lot of this work. It's aimed at things which need to be done very
fast, or which require a bunch of long running connections (file uploads
and downloads).

At its simplest, an earlier version of it that I was playing with last
week would do 16k "Hello World" type requests per second. I think that if
this pans out (it's rather directly derived from other Swiftiply work),
it'll probably end up doing around 11 thousand to 12 thousand simple
requests per second, and should be able to saturate a gigabit port, for
upload or download handling, on one or maybe two processes.


Kirk Haines

 

[Roger Pack]

A little slower than nginx can still be very fast.

My design goals are to be in the 8k-9k files per second range on my
development hardware, for small files, and preferably > 120 megabytes
per
second for large files.

Wow that would be fast: 120MB/s~1Gb/s.

That said....I _think_ small files handling may bump up into the 11k to
12k/second range on my hardware. Large file streaming will remain about
the same. I am tinkering with it as I type this, in fact.

Let us know if it works out and maybe swiftiply really will become the
default for Rails serving
Cheers.
-Roger

 

[Brian Candler]

We will be creating a heavy traffic site that uses Ajax, Flash video
and has heavy persistent database connectivity. Database will be most
probably PostgreSQL.

Usage requires speed close to real time, bandwidth or latency will not
be an issue. I'm pretty sure we can accomplish all of this if we stick
to pure Ruby. But we would like to create it using a web framework and
take advantage of Swiftiply, Erubis, Mongrel etc. .

My research shows that we will be needing Swiftiplied Mongrel and
should avoid Activerecord (use Og?). The closest frameworks in mind
are Camping and Merb. Which of these two would be the best option for
us?

I strongly recommend *not* using swiftiply. It's basically unmaintained.
I posted a reproducible bug a long time ago, and it was ignored.

There's little point going with Merb, because that's basically
unmaintained now as well - it's been merged into Rails 3.

Camping is an example of a "micro framework". It uses too much
metaprogramming magic for my taste. If you want a micro framework, I'd
suggest Sinatra instead.

Rails is obviously an example of a big framework ("macro framework"?).
Whether you use that will depend on how much you want to make use of the
structuring and helper methods it provides. It's a love-or-hate thing,
so if you love it, use it. I would not worry about performance when
using either of these: they both sit on top of Rack, and if you have
specific methods which require the lowest possible latency, you can
write them as Rack methods (under Rails they call this "Rails Metal")

Mongrel works fine but there are newer derivatives you should look at -
thin, unicorn, rainbows!

With any of those you'll probably want an apache or nginx proxy sitting
in front. Alternatively look at Phusion Passenger which runs directly
within apache or nginx.

HTH,

Brian.

 

[Mark T]

Hi Brian,

btw.. What was the Swiftiply bug?

MarkT

 

[Brian Candler]

The most severe problem I had with swiftiply was when I mounted an app
on a subdirectory with refix. If a request came outside that prefix
then it crashed immediately. Details at
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=14949&group_id=3637&atid=14008

I also submitted two minor patches:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?group_id=3637&atid=14010
The pidfile fix certainly hasn't been applied in the current git code;
the other patch looks like it's no longer relevant.

I actually quite like the concept of swiftiply, where you can have a
dynamic pool of workers which can "pull" HTTP requests from a
multiplexor, but it's a non-standard protocol and IMO ties you too
heavily to this one implementation. If you use regular HTTP proxying
then at least it's HTTP, and you have a whole range of both proxies and
HTTP servers to choose from. If you want a dynamic worker pool you have
at least Passenger and FastCGI to choose from.