https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14&hw=ph&test=plaintext

C++, Java and Go frameworks have very high performance. Vibe.d is supposed to have similar performance, but in fact vibe.d performance is very low. Why?

Am 06.07.2017 um 09:27 schrieb Marek:
> https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14&hw=ph&test=plaintext 
> 
> 
> C++, Java and Go frameworks have very high performance. Vibe.d is supposed to have similar performance, but in fact vibe.d performance is very low. Why?

This is a scalability issue, which should hopefully be fixed with 0.8.0. I'll open a PR once that is out. Basically with the version that was used in the last benchmark round, it didn't scale at all, and they use a server with many cores (40 + hyperthreading).

On Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 10:57:31 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> This is a scalability issue, which should hopefully be fixed with 0.8.0. I'll open a PR once that is out. Basically with the version that was used in the last benchmark round, it didn't scale at all, and they use a server with many cores (40 + hyperthreading).

What do you mean by 'scalability'? Raw tornado or bottle frameworks have much better results than vibe.d. Python and Ruby have GIL so they can't use threads in their standard implementations. They have much better results anyway.

On 2017-07-07 20:22, Marek wrote:

> What do you mean by 'scalability'? Raw tornado or bottle frameworks have
> much better results than vibe.d. Python and Ruby have GIL so they can't
> use threads in their standard implementations. They have much better
> results anyway.

I think that vibe.d didn't take full advantage of multi core, even when enabling threading support. Ruby, or rather Rails, applications are usually run using multiple processes, which allows to scale on a multi core CPU. You can do the same with vibe.d as well.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 10:57:31 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 06.07.2017 um 09:27 schrieb Marek:
>> https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14&hw=ph&test=plaintext
>> 
>> 
>> C++, Java and Go frameworks have very high performance. Vibe.d is supposed to have similar performance, but in fact vibe.d performance is very low. Why?
>
> This is a scalability issue, which should hopefully be fixed with 0.8.0. I'll open a PR once that is out. Basically with the version that was used in the last benchmark round, it didn't scale at all, and they use a server with many cores (40 + hyperthreading).

So you are saying that will solve the nearly 200x factor from the top? At least get it in the top 20?

Am 07.07.2017 um 21:27 schrieb FoxyBrown:
> On Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 10:57:31 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> Am 06.07.2017 um 09:27 schrieb Marek:
>>> https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14&hw=ph&test=plaintext
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> C++, Java and Go frameworks have very high performance. Vibe.d is
>>> supposed to have similar performance, but in fact vibe.d performance
>>> is very low. Why?
>>
>> This is a scalability issue, which should hopefully be fixed with
>> 0.8.0. I'll open a PR once that is out. Basically with the version
>> that was used in the last benchmark round, it didn't scale at all, and
>> they use a server with many cores (40 + hyperthreading).
>
> So you are saying that will solve the nearly 200x factor from the top?
> At least get it in the top 20?

There are more factors involved, but just based on this I would expect a factor of around x50 (~>800k/s). The 15k/s is very low even for a single core, though, and it's very possible that the factor will be considerably larger. However, this is hard to predict, as I currently don't have access to similar hardware to test this on.

these tests are pretty flawed considering that top places are taken by event loop libraries that have no other features other than 'respond to request'

On Friday, 7 July 2017 at 19:03:52 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> I think that vibe.d didn't take full advantage of multi core, even when enabling threading support. Ruby, or rather Rails, applications are usually run using multiple processes, which allows to scale on a multi core CPU. You can do the same with vibe.d as well.

So why Ruby or Python frameworks are much faster in this benchmark?

Am 14.07.2017 um 11:55 schrieb Marek:
> On Friday, 7 July 2017 at 19:03:52 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> I think that vibe.d didn't take full advantage of multi core, even when enabling threading support. Ruby, or rather Rails, applications are usually run using multiple processes, which allows to scale on a multi core CPU. You can do the same with vibe.d as well.
> 
> So why Ruby or Python frameworks are much faster in this benchmark?

- The vibe.d benchmark didn't scale across cores plus overhead
- The Ruby/Python benchmarks scaled >= 40x using multiple processes

You could do the same for the vibe.d benchmark, too (and it's generally a good idea). The current version should have the in-process scalability issue fixed, though, so presumably that will also work correctly now.

On Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 07:27:24 UTC, Marek wrote:
> https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r14&hw=ph&test=plaintext
>
> C++, Java and Go frameworks have very high performance. Vibe.d is supposed to have similar performance, but in fact vibe.d performance is very low. Why?

these tests are completely flawed, especially also in regards to todays world where you deploy microservices.


having benchmarked vibe about 1.5 years ago i can confirm that with a little bit of tuning and choosing the right libs and compilers you can become very competitive, especially once the app gets more complex.

write your own benchmark that operates on 1 core and test it.
its mostly a test of how fast your  http parser / json lib or db lib is.

none the less, for D it would be good to be much higher in this ranking.