<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 02/16/2012 02:02 PM, Roberto Ostinelli wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM5fRyr4uMTEj7hWLMVVYKBsOSixvRfGRTy8d=JKdeocnrykGA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div>On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Michael Truog <span><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mjtruog@gmail.com">mjtruog@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote>
Hi,<br>
<br>
I am very concerned about the fact Misultin will no longer be
developed, mainly because I don't see how cowboy has been able
to provide the same performance and stability Misultin has
provided. I understand there has been a great push for people
to use cowboy, but I think it really requires loadtest result
comparisons with Misultin to drive more serious usage. A good
way to start would be to show that cowboy can surpass or at
least be on-par with Misultin in a benchmark similar to <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ostinelli.net/a-comparison-between-misultin-mochiweb-cowboy-nodejs-and-tornadoweb/">http://www.ostinelli.net/a-comparison-between-misultin-mochiweb-cowboy-nodejs-and-tornadoweb/</a>
. How can we compare cowboy and Misultin stability (i.e., for
how long has cowboy been stable in production)? Is cowboy
going to be able to take the lead on HTTP Erlang web server
performance where mochiweb and yaws have been unable to
(please don't bother to flame this, those people that don't
care about performance, but care about Erlang)?<br>
<br>
So, this change just leaves me with a bunch of questions that
have no clear answers available. It is sad that we are losing
stability due to hype, which seems like an uncommon trend
among Erlang, but I assume this is more of a comment on the
community rather than the language. Thank you for your
efforts on Misultin!<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Michael</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>hi michael,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>as stated in that old benchmark, please do not take wrong
conclusions out of it. there's nothing in there which talks
about stability and other things. i'm happy that i've
published because it has brought *a lot* of attention to
erlang, but i probably wouldn't do it again: benchmarks like
this are probably more confusing than anything else.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>i'm not going for 'hype', but tend to be a little
realistic. i've been developing misultin mainly by myself with
the support of the community. cowboy has had a fast adoption
and lot of developer which i believe to be very good are
actively and jointly working on it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>i'm obviously running misultin in production since i've
built it because i needed it: i'm simply gradually gonna
consider cowboy for my new projects.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>r.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<tt><br>
That may be a common reason to avoid providing any public
benchmarks, it may never be a diplomatic thing to do, since it is
raw results. The interpretation of the results is always
dependent on the individual that is doing the decision making.
However, the potential for an individual to misinterpret the
results does not seem to be good justification for not posting
performance information. Keeping performance information private,
helps to limit innovation, only encouraging stagnation. Having a
good idea of how HTTP servers compare is very beneficial, to help
reduce latency, support more connections, and support more
internal computation latency.... so, it helps us push limits. I
understand you may not want to do benchmarks like that in the
future, but I think it would be a shame to not have more recent
benchmark results that can provide a more logical guide for our
decision making when we consider the strengths and weaknesses of
the various Erlang HTTP servers (and their improvements over what
is available without Erlang).<br>
<br>
- Michael<br>
</tt>
</body>
</html>