[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Chicken-users] Numbers anywhere?
From: |
Joerg F. Wittenberger |
Subject: |
[Chicken-users] Numbers anywhere? |
Date: |
15 Jan 2003 19:13:21 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) |
Hi,
Felix Winkelmann <address@hidden> writes:
> Joerg F. Wittenberger wrote:
[...]
> > BTW: I used the flush enabled output ports to improve the
>
> > chickenlib/socket.scm; it's still not perfect but faster on average.
> > Anybody at the list interested?
>
> Well done! Where's Tony...? ;-)
>:->
Slow down. Another turn and everything breaks. Right now I see the
chicken version take up at most 60% of CPU and deliver at a 15th the
speed of the rscheme original. Profiling is turned on.
* when I switch profiling off and all but -unsafe optimization on, I
gain approx. 30% speed. Is this normal range?
* any numbers how rscheme and chicken are supposed to compare speed
wise?
* does anybody have some fast code to multiplex i/o around select(2)?
I really doubt there must be a problem with the chickenlib code, but
I can't find it.
Also of high interest, but maybe not for the list, so please reply
privately, if you have following info:
* anybody here, who knows how much faster apache is for plain file in
comparison to apache/mod_perl, php etc. for higly dynamic pages?
more like 10:1, 5:1, 2:1
* How fast would you expect an all-Scheme web server to be in
comparison to apache?
best regards
/Jörg
--
The worst of harm may often result from the best of intentions.
- [Chicken-users] Numbers anywhere?,
Joerg F. Wittenberger <=