Hi all,

For my final year project I have been comparing web frameworks to get
performance benchmarks that others can then use when deciding upon a web
framework. The idea is simple; first you build the same simple applications
in another web framework and then use the tests that I provide. You then
compare your results against my benchmarks to help in making a decision on
your chosen web framework. I started out with 3 web frameworks; Ruby on
Rails, Chicago Boss and Flask. I chose Rails because of its status as the
go to web framework, Boss because of its fast growing popularity and
because of its Erlang implementation and finally Flask because it is very
different to the first two in that it is a "bare bones" web
micro-framework. The findings are interesting and can be seen here:
http://web-framework-comparison.blogspot.ie/2015/04/benchmarks-i-am-final-year-student-in.html

Thanks for taking the time to read this and hopefully it might be of some
benefit.

Darren Daly.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/03c5f7c4-e821-450c-ad86-1cbd908f9ba5%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Search Discussions

  • Gvim at Apr 6, 2015 at 1:26 am

    On 05/04/2015 14:00, Darren Daly wrote:
    Hi all,

    For my final year project I have been comparing web frameworks to get
    performance benchmarks that others can then use when deciding upon a web
    framework. The idea is simple; first you build the same simple
    applications in another web framework and then use the tests that I
    provide. You then compare your results against my benchmarks to help in
    making a decision on your chosen web framework. I started out with 3 web
    frameworks; Ruby on Rails, Chicago Boss and Flask. I chose Rails because
    of its status as the go to web framework, Boss because of its fast
    growing popularity and because of its Erlang implementation and finally
    Flask because it is very different to the first two in that it is a
    "bare bones" web micro-framework. The findings are interesting and can
    be seen here:
    http://web-framework-comparison.blogspot.ie/2015/04/benchmarks-i-am-final-year-student-in.html
    <http://web-framework-comparison.blogspot.ie/2015/04/benchmarks-i-am-final-year-student-in.html>

    Thanks for taking the time to read this and hopefully it might be of
    some benefit.

    Darren Daly.
    I think you should also consider including Laravel (PHP), Phoenix
    (Elixir) and Luminus (Clojure).

    gvim

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/5521E0B7.4000003%40gmail.com.
    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  • Darren Daly at Apr 8, 2015 at 2:07 pm
    I was under a time constraint with this project, but may consider doing
    that in the future.
    On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 2:27:21 AM UTC+1, gvim wrote:
    On 05/04/2015 14:00, Darren Daly wrote:
    Hi all,

    For my final year project I have been comparing web frameworks to get
    performance benchmarks that others can then use when deciding upon a web
    framework. The idea is simple; first you build the same simple
    applications in another web framework and then use the tests that I
    provide. You then compare your results against my benchmarks to help in
    making a decision on your chosen web framework. I started out with 3 web
    frameworks; Ruby on Rails, Chicago Boss and Flask. I chose Rails because
    of its status as the go to web framework, Boss because of its fast
    growing popularity and because of its Erlang implementation and finally
    Flask because it is very different to the first two in that it is a
    "bare bones" web micro-framework. The findings are interesting and can
    be seen here:
    http://web-framework-comparison.blogspot.ie/2015/04/benchmarks-i-am-final-year-student-in.html
    <
    http://web-framework-comparison.blogspot.ie/2015/04/benchmarks-i-am-final-year-student-in.html>
    Thanks for taking the time to read this and hopefully it might be of
    some benefit.

    Darren Daly.
    I think you should also consider including Laravel (PHP), Phoenix
    (Elixir) and Luminus (Clojure).

    gvim
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/50b4c6bf-2f2d-471f-a86f-bb1eea95945d%40googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  • Stewart Mckinney at Apr 8, 2015 at 7:46 pm
    Hey, just as an FYI, you probably aren't going to get anything out of
    comparing these frameworks in anything but "production server mode".

    For Rails's case at the very least, literally no one runs a web site on
    WEBrick or Thin. Most configurations use Unicorn , Puma, or Passenger
    and/or NGINX. You'll probably get more mileage out of comparing the
    different server options than development mode on Rails, which is
    engineered to be the opposite of fast for ease of development.

    For sake of completeness, as well, I would include the .conf files for
    Apache that were used for the comparison. It's not really telling a full
    story unless we know configuration values - thread pooling/# of threads can
    tell a large part as to why these benchmarks are so different. Things like
    # of persistent connections to the DB can also effect these numbers ( if
    1000 threads are waiting on 5 connections, everyone is sad ), and should
    probably also be up front.


    On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Darren Daly wrote:

    I was under a time constraint with this project, but may consider doing
    that in the future.

    On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 2:27:21 AM UTC+1, gvim wrote:
    On 05/04/2015 14:00, Darren Daly wrote:
    Hi all,

    For my final year project I have been comparing web frameworks to get
    performance benchmarks that others can then use when deciding upon a web
    framework. The idea is simple; first you build the same simple
    applications in another web framework and then use the tests that I
    provide. You then compare your results against my benchmarks to help in
    making a decision on your chosen web framework. I started out with 3 web
    frameworks; Ruby on Rails, Chicago Boss and Flask. I chose Rails because
    of its status as the go to web framework, Boss because of its fast
    growing popularity and because of its Erlang implementation and finally
    Flask because it is very different to the first two in that it is a
    "bare bones" web micro-framework. The findings are interesting and can
    be seen here:
    http://web-framework-comparison.blogspot.ie/2015/
    04/benchmarks-i-am-final-year-student-in.html
    <http://web-framework-comparison.blogspot.ie/2015/
    04/benchmarks-i-am-final-year-student-in.html>
    Thanks for taking the time to read this and hopefully it might be of
    some benefit.

    Darren Daly.
    I think you should also consider including Laravel (PHP), Phoenix
    (Elixir) and Luminus (Clojure).

    gvim
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
    "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
    email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To view this discussion on the web visit
    https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/50b4c6bf-2f2d-471f-a86f-bb1eea95945d%40googlegroups.com
    <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/50b4c6bf-2f2d-471f-a86f-bb1eea95945d%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
    .

    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/CA%2BCQ935ZZ8AuouxcQZr0RWr614aYLf%3D-ecvcKNeX5ap4BZKsdg%40mail.gmail.com.
    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  • Stewart Mckinney at Apr 8, 2015 at 7:46 pm
    I'm going to correct myself - there are some cases for using Thin.
    On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Stewart Mckinney wrote:

    Hey, just as an FYI, you probably aren't going to get anything out of
    comparing these frameworks in anything but "production server mode".

    For Rails's case at the very least, literally no one runs a web site on
    WEBrick or Thin. Most configurations use Unicorn , Puma, or Passenger
    and/or NGINX. You'll probably get more mileage out of comparing the
    different server options than development mode on Rails, which is
    engineered to be the opposite of fast for ease of development.

    For sake of completeness, as well, I would include the .conf files for
    Apache that were used for the comparison. It's not really telling a full
    story unless we know configuration values - thread pooling/# of threads can
    tell a large part as to why these benchmarks are so different. Things like
    # of persistent connections to the DB can also effect these numbers ( if
    1000 threads are waiting on 5 connections, everyone is sad ), and should
    probably also be up front.


    On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Darren Daly wrote:

    I was under a time constraint with this project, but may consider doing
    that in the future.

    On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 2:27:21 AM UTC+1, gvim wrote:
    On 05/04/2015 14:00, Darren Daly wrote:
    Hi all,

    For my final year project I have been comparing web frameworks to get
    performance benchmarks that others can then use when deciding upon a web
    framework. The idea is simple; first you build the same simple
    applications in another web framework and then use the tests that I
    provide. You then compare your results against my benchmarks to help in
    making a decision on your chosen web framework. I started out with 3 web
    frameworks; Ruby on Rails, Chicago Boss and Flask. I chose Rails because
    of its status as the go to web framework, Boss because of its fast
    growing popularity and because of its Erlang implementation and finally
    Flask because it is very different to the first two in that it is a
    "bare bones" web micro-framework. The findings are interesting and can
    be seen here:
    http://web-framework-comparison.blogspot.ie/2015/
    04/benchmarks-i-am-final-year-student-in.html
    <http://web-framework-comparison.blogspot.ie/2015/
    04/benchmarks-i-am-final-year-student-in.html>
    Thanks for taking the time to read this and hopefully it might be of
    some benefit.

    Darren Daly.
    I think you should also consider including Laravel (PHP), Phoenix
    (Elixir) and Luminus (Clojure).

    gvim
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
    "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
    email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To view this discussion on the web visit
    https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/50b4c6bf-2f2d-471f-a86f-bb1eea95945d%40googlegroups.com
    <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/50b4c6bf-2f2d-471f-a86f-bb1eea95945d%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
    .

    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/CA%2BCQ936p0_sHF5uv3z%3DBum39Hmk5UK9kzNAgYcKKb7wJxPoDuw%40mail.gmail.com.
    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  • Archerydwd at Apr 8, 2015 at 9:54 pm
    Thanks for your feedback. I compared rails in development mode for completeness sake. I also did production server tests using passenger in the case of rails to which the results can be found on the blog post. The .conf file can be found here: https://github.com/archerydwd/Apache-Rails-Passenger-Ubuntu/blob/master/README.md

    Darren.

    Sent from my iPhone
    On 8 Apr 2015, at 18:51, Stewart Mckinney wrote:

    Hey, just as an FYI, you probably aren't going to get anything out of comparing these frameworks in anything but "production server mode".

    For Rails's case at the very least, literally no one runs a web site on WEBrick or Thin. Most configurations use Unicorn , Puma, or Passenger and/or NGINX. You'll probably get more mileage out of comparing the different server options than development mode on Rails, which is engineered to be the opposite of fast for ease of development.

    For sake of completeness, as well, I would include the .conf files for Apache that were used for the comparison. It's not really telling a full story unless we know configuration values - thread pooling/# of threads can tell a large part as to why these benchmarks are so different. Things like # of persistent connections to the DB can also effect these numbers ( if 1000 threads are waiting on 5 connections, everyone is sad ), and should probably also be up front.


    On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Darren Daly wrote:
    I was under a time constraint with this project, but may consider doing that in the future.

    On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 2:27:21 AM UTC+1, gvim wrote:
    On 05/04/2015 14:00, Darren Daly wrote:
    Hi all,

    For my final year project I have been comparing web frameworks to get
    performance benchmarks that others can then use when deciding upon a web
    framework. The idea is simple; first you build the same simple
    applications in another web framework and then use the tests that I
    provide. You then compare your results against my benchmarks to help in
    making a decision on your chosen web framework. I started out with 3 web
    frameworks; Ruby on Rails, Chicago Boss and Flask. I chose Rails because
    of its status as the go to web framework, Boss because of its fast
    growing popularity and because of its Erlang implementation and finally
    Flask because it is very different to the first two in that it is a
    "bare bones" web micro-framework. The findings are interesting and can
    be seen here:
    http://web-framework-comparison.blogspot.ie/2015/04/benchmarks-i-am-final-year-student-in.html
    <http://web-framework-comparison.blogspot.ie/2015/04/benchmarks-i-am-final-year-student-in.html>

    Thanks for taking the time to read this and hopefully it might be of
    some benefit.

    Darren Daly.
    I think you should also consider including Laravel (PHP), Phoenix
    (Elixir) and Luminus (Clojure).

    gvim
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/50b4c6bf-2f2d-471f-a86f-bb1eea95945d%40googlegroups.com.

    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rubyonrails-talk/CF5CVfxS-Mk/unsubscribe.
    To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/CA%2BCQ935ZZ8AuouxcQZr0RWr614aYLf%3D-ecvcKNeX5ap4BZKsdg%40mail.gmail.com.
    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/580B4CB9-D79C-4192-8443-BABA5CAC50C6%40gmail.com.
    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouprubyonrails-talk @
categoriesrubyonrails
postedApr 5, '15 at 2:54p
activeApr 8, '15 at 9:54p
posts6
users3
websiterubyonrails.org
irc#RubyOnRails

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase