jwieland at gmail
Apr 23, 2009, 1:41 PM
Post #8 of 9
(2238 views)
Permalink
|
Matt S Trout wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 05:50:02PM -0700, Jason Wieland wrote:
>
>> Baseline: Just using the webserver (apache or nginx) to download a
>> static file
>> Static Catalyst: Running the same query but going through Catalyst to
>> retrieve the same static file (using Static::Simple)
>> Noop Catalyst: Processing a request on a empty controller
>>
>
> So, you've benchmarked Hello World. Why do you care?
>
> I've worked on a lot of large scale Catalyst applications, and done a
> fair amount of optimisation work, and I have *never* found Catalyst to
> be the bottleneck in my performance testing. Better still, because
> the teams had used Catalyst they had more time at the end of the
> project for performance testing and optimisation and it was easier
> to clean up the code because the architecture of the application was
> flexible. That really, massively beats caring about how fast Hello
> World is :)
>
I completely agree, one of my most recent projects was creating
http://notify.me pure Catalyst we get 10k+ hits a day, rapid
development, no issues, its a joy. Catalyst is wonderful technology for
all the reasons above and previous emails, hats off to the developers.
However I'm working on a different project for an ISP (ondemand
anti-phishing protection) which requires us to handle a peak of 10,000
reqs/second and response that takes no less then 250milliseconds. We
have an backend engine that can do that all what we need to put in front
is a restful web layer. Because of the beauti of Catalyst got this
working in a day or two. However to scaling is not going to work in the
current state.
I'm not using any of Catalyst plugins, just the vanilla Catalyst and its
MVC framework. I don't know if it would be better to hack through
Catalyst and remove the parts I don't need for this project. Or write
another very simple webframework re-create the parts of Catalyst I do use.
> I'd point out that BBC iPlayer is built on Catalyst and DBIx::Class
> - are you going to tell me you're going to need to scale further than
> they do? :)
>
>
>> Also completely unrelated. I could not get Catalyst working on the
>> mpm_worker_module. Is Catalyst not thread safe?
>>
>
> Catalyst is threadsafe. Your DBD:: may not be, or something else you
> load. But FastCGI is a much better production environment than mod_perl
> anyway.
>
Not using a DBD:: Just try out the base Catalyst example, created when
you start a new project.
I do agree fastcgi is a better production environment though. Just did
the modperl stuff for comparisons and also there are some old timers in
the office that are determined to think modperl has to be faster then
fcgi. Not withstanding the benefits of a two tiered response layer.
Thanks for everyone's time and responses.
Jason Wieland
|
