According to John Foderaro the creator of allegroserve:
portable programs work in the least common denominator of the
capabilties of the target platforms. I have a lot of control over
things I can add to ACL to make it achieve the speed/reliability goal
but I have no control over the other lisp implementations. Likewise
other Lisps may have special features that I can't make use of since
not all other Lisps have equivalent features.
That means if I use portable allegro serve in a high load commercial
web application setting it will lag behind if I use allegro serve in
terms of performance.Has anyone used portable allegro serve? How does
it compare in performance to apache?Are there any other open sourced
multi thread supported lisp web servers which perform comparable or
better performance than apache or I have to use apache using mod_lisp
for my lisp code?
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: Regarding portable allegro server and free multi threaded web servers
Date:
Message-ID: <op.tn5gxmx5pqzri1@pandora.upc.no>
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:07:40 +0100, ············@gmail.com
<············@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to John Foderaro the creator of allegroserve:
> portable programs work in the least common denominator of the
> capabilties of the target platforms. I have a lot of control over
> things I can add to ACL to make it achieve the speed/reliability goal
> but I have no control over the other lisp implementations. Likewise
> other Lisps may have special features that I can't make use of since
> not all other Lisps have equivalent features.
>
>
> That means if I use portable allegro serve in a high load commercial
> web application setting it will lag behind if I use allegro serve in
> terms of performance.Has anyone used portable allegro serve? How does
> it compare in performance to apache?Are there any other open sourced
> multi thread supported lisp web servers which perform comparable or
> better performance than apache or I have to use apache using mod_lisp
> for my lisp code?
>
Take a look at hunchentoot. Edi Weits et al's we server.
Havn't measured it's performance yet. But it is known to be fast.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
On Feb 22, 6:28 am, "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:07:40 +0100, ············@gmail.com
>
>
>
> <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > According to John Foderaro the creator of allegroserve:
> > portable programs work in the least common denominator of the
> > capabilties of the target platforms. I have a lot of control over
> > things I can add to ACL to make it achieve the speed/reliability goal
> > but I have no control over the other lisp implementations. Likewise
> > other Lisps may have special features that I can't make use of since
> > not all other Lisps have equivalent features.
>
> > That means if I use portable allegro serve in a high load commercial
> > web application setting it will lag behind if I use allegro serve in
> > terms of performance.Has anyone used portable allegro serve? How does
> > it compare in performance to apache?Are there any other open sourced
> > multi thread supported lisp web servers which perform comparable or
> > better performance than apache or I have to use apache using mod_lisp
> > for my lisp code?
>
> Take a look at hunchentoot. Edi Weits et al's we server.
> Havn't measured it's performance yet. But it is known to be fast.
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:http://www.opera.com/mai
Yea, it is fast. Not sure how stable yet, as I have only been using
it for a few days with a handful of people.
Anyone else using it in a production environment?
From: Petter Gustad
Subject: Re: Regarding portable allegro server and free multi threaded web servers
Date:
Message-ID: <7dlkilgwo3.fsf@www.gratismegler.no>
"Chris Parker" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> Yea, it is fast. Not sure how stable yet, as I have only been using
Which benchmark program did you run?
Petter
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
On Feb 26, 2:17 am, Petter Gustad <·············@gustad.com> wrote:
> "Chris Parker" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> > Yea, it is fast. Not sure how stable yet, as I have only been using
>
> Which benchmark program did you run?
>
> Petter
> --
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Should have said: "fast for me." The Chris Parker benchmark: does it
run at an acceptable speed?
From: Petter Gustad
Subject: Re: Regarding portable allegro server and free multi threaded web servers
Date:
Message-ID: <7d4pp8vll9.fsf@www.gratismegler.no>
"Chris Parker" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> On Feb 26, 2:17 am, Petter Gustad <·············@gustad.com> wrote:
> > "Chris Parker" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> > > Yea, it is fast. Not sure how stable yet, as I have only been using
> >
> > Which benchmark program did you run?
> Should have said: "fast for me." The Chris Parker benchmark: does it
> run at an acceptable speed?
I think almost every server would appear fast enough. The question is
what happens when it gets heavily loaded with lots of connections etc.
I've been using Portable AllegroServe (together with CLSQL) for an
intranet application for several years. It has never crashed and I'm
very happy with its stability and ease of development.
However, I'm currently working on a new application and I was hoping
to find some benchmarks to do some performance testing, or even find
some benchmark results published by others.
Petter
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
From: Petter Gustad
Subject: Re: Regarding portable allegro server and free multi threaded web servers
Date:
Message-ID: <7dr6shp0kv.fsf@www.gratismegler.no>
·············@gmail.com" <············@gmail.com> writes:
> terms of performance.Has anyone used portable allegro serve? How does
> it compare in performance to apache?Are there any other open sourced
I've been using Portable Allegroserve/Webactions (paserve) with CMUCL
under Linux for some time. I usually start the server like this:
(asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op :web)
(mp:make-process #'web:start-web-server)
(mp::startup-idle-and-top-level-loops)
And then usually:
(swank:create-swank-server 4005)
I haven't noticed any problems with speed, it appears to be very
fast. However, I haven't run any benchmarks nor is my sites very
heavily loaded. Your code is compiled into the Lisp server object and
is tightly coupled to the server. This would be an advantage when
compared to Apache/PHP. Development and debugging using slime is also
productive since you can connect to your running server as with any
other Lisp program.
Petter
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9_Thieme?=
Subject: Re: Regarding portable allegro server and free multi threaded web servers
Date:
Message-ID: <ernttg$vev$1@registered.motzarella.org>
············@gmail.com schrieb:
> According to John Foderaro the creator of allegroserve:
> portable programs work in the least common denominator of the
> capabilties of the target platforms. I have a lot of control over
> things I can add to ACL to make it achieve the speed/reliability goal
> but I have no control over the other lisp implementations. Likewise
> other Lisps may have special features that I can't make use of since
> not all other Lisps have equivalent features.
>
>
> That means if I use portable allegro serve in a high load commercial
> web application setting it will lag behind if I use allegro serve in
> terms of performance.Has anyone used portable allegro serve? How does
> it compare in performance to apache?Are there any other open sourced
> multi thread supported lisp web servers which perform comparable or
> better performance than apache or I have to use apache using mod_lisp
> for my lisp code?
sbcl+AllegroServe have a very similar speed to Apache.
When under high load the "load average" that Apache causes can easily
go over 20 while with AllegroServe it stays ca. at 1 or 2.
See, usually the webserver itself won't be the problem.
Your server hoster will give you maybe a 100 mbit connection to the
net. That's ca. 10 MB. You first need an application that can produce
10 MB per second. And if you have - well, to send out 10 MB you are fine
with AllegroServe.
A note: AllegroServe running under Allegro 8.0 has 5-10% better
performance.
So, to sum it up: no need for crap like Apache. Use a lisp solution.
Andr�
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Regarding portable allegro server and free multi threaded web servers
Date:
Message-ID: <ero0eg$lbt$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>
On 2007-02-23 23:38:23 +0000, Andr� Thieme
<······························@justmail.de> said:
> See, usually the webserver itself won't be the problem.
> Your server hoster will give you maybe a 100 mbit connection to the
> net. That's ca. 10 MB. You first need an application that can produce
> 10 MB per second. And if you have - well, to send out 10 MB you are fine
> with AllegroServe.
There are lots of other issues with scalable web servers. For instance
how well do they deal with lots of high-latency connections etc etc.
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: Regarding portable allegro server and free multi threaded web servers
Date:
Message-ID: <m3irds9f11.fsf@latakia.dyndns.org>
André Thieme <······························@justmail.de> writes:
>
> So, to sum it up: no need for crap like Apache. Use a lisp solution.
Well, no need at all--save for all the nice stuff you get out-of-the-box
with Apache. Stuff like authentication, authorisation, content
negotiation, redirection and so forth. Little things like that.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Would-be National Mottoes:
Poland: We probably would have had a happier history if we were
between Canada and Mexico, not Germany and Russia.
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9_Thieme?=
Subject: Re: Regarding portable allegro server and free multi threaded web servers
Date:
Message-ID: <ero33v$6sq$1@registered.motzarella.org>
············@gmail.com schrieb:
> According to John Foderaro the creator of allegroserve:
> portable programs work in the least common denominator of the
> capabilties of the target platforms. I have a lot of control over
> things I can add to ACL to make it achieve the speed/reliability goal
> but I have no control over the other lisp implementations. Likewise
> other Lisps may have special features that I can't make use of since
> not all other Lisps have equivalent features.
>
>
> That means if I use portable allegro serve in a high load commercial
> web application setting it will lag behind if I use allegro serve in
> terms of performance.Has anyone used portable allegro serve? How does
> it compare in performance to apache?Are there any other open sourced
> multi thread supported lisp web servers which perform comparable or
> better performance than apache or I have to use apache using mod_lisp
> for my lisp code?
sbcl+AllegroServe have a very similar speed to Apache.
When under high load the "load average" that Apache causes can easily
go over 20 while with AllegroServe it stays ca. at 1 or 2.
See, usually the webserver itself won't be the problem.
Your server hoster will give you maybe a 100 mbit connection to the
net. That's ca. 10 MB. You first need an application that can produce
10 MB per second. And if you have - well, to send out 10 MB you are fine
with AllegroServe.
A note: AllegroServe running under Allegro 8.0 has 5-10% better
performance.
So, to sum it up: no need for crap like Apache. Use a lisp solution.
Andr�