Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Mar 24, 2026. It is now read-only.

Add Roda+Sequel benchmarks#2516

Merged
knewmanTE merged 1 commit intoTechEmpower:masterfrom
mwpastore:roda-sequel-2
Jan 25, 2017
Merged

Add Roda+Sequel benchmarks#2516
knewmanTE merged 1 commit intoTechEmpower:masterfrom
mwpastore:roda-sequel-2

Conversation

@mwpastore
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This "hard fork" of sinatra-sequel swaps out Sinatra and Slim for Roda and Erubi. Otherwise it is almost exactly the same!

[ci fw-only Ruby/roda-sequel]

[ci fw-only Ruby/roda-sequel]
@knewmanTE
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This looks good to me!

@mwpastore, out of curiosity, do the different platforms and servers make a noticeable difference in benchmark results? I ask just because Ruby tests have historically had a large number of tests per framework and given that each additional test implementation adds to the total time it takes to run the suite, it would be great if we could find a way to trim down on the total number of Ruby tests. From a quick look at our Round 13 results, it looks like Thin consistently performs the worst across all Ruby tests, Unicorn performs the best, and Puma is a little lower than Unicorn.

@knewmanTE knewmanTE merged commit 71c394b into TechEmpower:master Jan 25, 2017
@mwpastore
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mwpastore commented Jan 25, 2017

That's fair, and the number of Ruby frameworks is ever-increasing (sorry), so we have some quadratic growth here. Puma, Unicorn, and Passenger are the three most popular Ruby app servers, so I would definitely like to keep those, and JRuby+TorqueBox seems to be the best massively-multithreaded option today (given the somewhat sorry states of Rubinius and JRuby web servers such as Trinidad, Jubilee, Fishwife...). I would be comfortable removing JRuby+Puma, would that be helpful?

@mwpastore mwpastore deleted the roda-sequel-2 branch January 25, 2017 23:29
@knewmanTE
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Yeah, that would probably be helpful! I'll make an Issue where maybe we can solicit some feedback from any other Ruby developers who might have strong opinions one way or another.

@knewmanTE
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mwpastore actually, looking at some of our other Ruby tests, it looks like we no longer have any JRuby or Puma tests anyway, so maybe just open up a new PR that removes those tests from your two recent framework additions?

@mwpastore
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@knewmanTE @nbrady-techempower removed JRuby in #2277 with the intention of adding it back in for Round 14. I offered to add it back in for sinatra-sequel and carried the change through to rack-sequel and roda-sequel.

@knewmanTE
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Ahh, right you are! I'm fine keeping it as-is for now then. (sorry for the confusion, I'm still catching myself up on all of the setup and Travis changes that were implemented over the past couple months).

@mwpastore
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mwpastore commented Jan 25, 2017

No worries! It's been quite a whirlwind of activity. The new setup and Travis configuration are pretty fantastic.

@knewmanTE
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Yeah, we're pretty stoked about it! Having an all-green Travis is a dream come true!

zloster pushed a commit to zloster/FrameworkBenchmarks that referenced this pull request Mar 21, 2017
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants