Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

[testing rugby-core]

 [1/4] from: rebol665::ifrance::com at: 11-Feb-2002 21:41


Hi petr Following your request, I have tested rugby-core versus rugby-xpi. Here are the results : rugby-core (http) -> duration 0:00:59.98 rugby-xpi (tcp) -> duration 0:00:41.85 rugby-xpi (http) -> duration 0:00:40.7 It is strange that in rugby-xpi both tcp and http give similar duration. Rugby-core is 1.5 times slower than rugby-xpi. Tests were conducted in console mode on the same computer. Server code was : for http testing with rugby-core
>> do %rugby.r >> serve/with [echo] tcp://:8005
for http testing with rugby-xpi
>> do %rugby.r >> serve/with-http [echo] tcp://:8005
for tcp testing with rugby-xpi
>> do %rugby.r >> serve/with [echo] tcp://:8005
Client code was : for http testing with rugby-core
>> do %rugby.r >> do get-rugby-service http://localhost:8005 >> start: now/time/precise loop 100 [echo "test"] print now/time/precise -
start for http testing with rugby-xpi
>> do %rugby.r >> do get-rugby-service/http http://localhost:8005 >> start: now/time/precise loop 100 [echo "test"] print now/time/precise -
start for tcp testing with rugby-xpi
>> do %rugby.r >> do get-rugby-service tcp://localhost:8005 >> start: now/time/precise loop 100 [echo "test"] print now/time/precise -
start Patrick

 [2/4] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 12-Feb-2002 6:21


Thanks a lot, Patrick! Now Maarten - why is there so much of a difference? I would expect some 3 - 5 % difference for the new version, not 1/3 of the performance .... pat665 wrote:
> Hi petr > Following your request, I have tested rugby-core versus rugby-xpi. Here are
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> rugby-xpi (http) -> duration 0:00:40.7 > It is strange that in rugby-xpi both tcp and http give similar duration.
It is not imo :-) http is just tcp with some additional header packed inside :-) It was one of reasons why Maarten decided to go with http only imho - htpp is more general and it mean no performance loss. The overall performance is dissappointing though ... btw: I don't know what's with my computer, but I can't state following: do get-rugby-service http://localhost:9005 do get-rugby-service http://127.0.0.1:9005 instead of that I have to state: do get-rugby-service http://my-real-ip-address-here:9005 strange, shouldn't it work using "localhost" or loopback address? -pekr-

 [3/4] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 12-Feb-2002 7:36


Replying to myself as I figured out something ...
> btw: I don't know what's with my computer, but I can't state following: > > do get-rugby-service http://localhost:9005 > do get-rugby-service http://127.0.0.1:9005 > > instead of that I have to state: > > do get-rugby-service http://my-real-ip-address-here:9005 > > strange, shouldn't it work using "localhost" or loopback address? >
If you are using proxy, take care of putting bypass for your loopback address into the block, e.g. system/schemes/default/proxy/bypass: ["127.0.0.1"] ... and the problem will be gone. Otherwise Rugby will try to 'get-rugby-service from your localhost thru your proxy, which does not know what the "localhost" actually is, or something like that :-) Maarten: Worth putting it in faq? Cheers, -pekr-

 [4/4] from: jason:cunliffe:verizon at: 12-Feb-2002 2:00


> btw: I don't know what's with my computer, but I can't state following: > > do get-rugby-service http://localhost:9005 > do get-rugby-service http://127.0.0.1:9005 > > instead of that I have to state: > > do get-rugby-service http://my-real-ip-address-here:9005 > > strange, shouldn't it work using "localhost" or loopback address?
hmm.. perhaps check the entries in your 'hosts' file ? ./Jason

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted