# \[ANN\] Ebb Web Server **URL:** \ **Category:** Mongrel\ **Created:** [January 14, 2008, 5:44pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ebb-web-server/126010 "2008-01-14T17:44:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/casper_the_ghost)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2008, 11:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ebb-web-server/126010/21 "2008-01-21T23:02:15Z")
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:12:06 -0200 “Luis L.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > No, he removed them: > > [http://pastie.caboo.se/141633](http://pastie.caboo.se/141633) > > The ragel code will generate the http11\_parser.c file, and http11.c > file defines all the functions pointers: > > Theory indicates that allocation happens way before the ragel code is > getting executed, so there is no need to evaluate the conditions all > the time, ending with a speed boost. That’s bullshit. All of those tests are simple checks to make sure that you aren’t passing in NULL pointers (which happens when the lib is used generally). Removing those would be a tiny little impact on the performance since they’re written in raw C. Only reason that’d speed things up is if the compiler wasn’t doing its job right (which is possible). It’s also a performance _loss_ in that a user of the library has to set all callbacks always (or get a crash) and then every function is called even if a user of the lib only cares about a particular piece. Also, what’s happened is now the safety checks against invalid input are gone too. Any of those actions could fire in the parser section and if those variables are not set then the whole program will eat it bad. That’s a very bad design change, and now I wish I’d gone to the dude’s demonstration so I could tell him. If someone wanted to optimize this just for the case where every function is used and always set, but not lose safety then they should change the constructor to the library to require those functions always be set. Then you could remove the if-statements. – Zed A. Shaw - Hate: [http://savingtheinternetwithhate.com/](http://savingtheinternetwithhate.com/) - Good: [http://www.zedshaw.com/](http://www.zedshaw.com/) - Evil: [http://yearofevil.com/](http://yearofevil.com/) ---
**Author:** ![casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/casper_the_ghost)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2008, 11:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ebb-web-server/126010/22 "2008-01-21T23:14:10Z")
> Grrrr, you need a Y axis Ry. What is that measuring. Hell, shoot me > the raw data and I’ll do the graph with R (since I’m curious). The vertical axis is requests/sec (says at the top of the graph). I don’t bother to give actual numbers because it’s only to demonstrate the relative increase in speed. You can generate your own data with the script in ruby\_bridge/benchmark/test\_camping.rb ry ---
**Author:** ![casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/casper_the_ghost)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2008, 11:11pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ebb-web-server/126010/23 "2008-01-21T23:11:49Z")
On Jan 21, 2008 8:06 PM, Zed A. Shaw [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > Theory indicates that allocation happens way before the ragel code is > > getting executed, so there is no need to evaluate the conditions all > > the time, ending with a speed boost. > > That’s bullshit. All of those tests are simple checks to make sure > that you aren’t passing in NULL pointers (which happens when the lib is > used generally). Removing those would be a tiny little impact on the > performance since they’re written in raw C. Only reason that’d speed > things up is if the compiler wasn’t doing its job right (which is > possible). Please Zed, I’m not validating nor arguing against that decision. I just exposing that, the way I asked on #thin irc channel too a few weeks back. > It’s also a performance _loss_ in that a user of the library has to set > all callbacks always (or get a crash) and then every function is called > even if a user of the lib only cares about a particular piece. That’s why I was wondering, but still couldn’t run my own series of tests to see how that change impact on overall performance. > change the constructor to the library to require those functions always > be set. Then you could remove the if-statements. Good point. Still, prove of performance improvement must me shown, but there also corner cases that exposes situations like you mention. Again: I’m just exposing the situation, that’s why the “in theory”… I’m not validating anything 🙂 ## – Luis L. Multimedia systems A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. Douglas Adams ---
**Author:** ![casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/casper_the_ghost)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 3:50am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ebb-web-server/126010/24 "2008-01-22T03:50:06Z")
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:08:46 -0200 “Luis L.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > weeks back. > Sorry Luis, but I didn’t say “Luis, you’re a bullshitter.” I said, > “That’s bullshit.” Meaning, the claim of a large performance increase > from just removing a series of if-statements isn’t worth the loss in > security and safety. You should know by now that if I _really_ wanted to be mean to you I’d say it directly to you. I’m talking about the code, nobody directly or their personalities. – Zed A. Shaw - Hate: [http://savingtheinternetwithhate.com/](http://savingtheinternetwithhate.com/) - Good: [http://www.zedshaw.com/](http://www.zedshaw.com/) - Evil: [http://yearofevil.com/](http://yearofevil.com/) ---
**Author:** ![casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/casper_the_ghost)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2008, 11:17pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ebb-web-server/126010/25 "2008-01-21T23:17:05Z")
thx for the pointer, I’ll change the constructor then ---
**Author:** ![casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/casper_the_ghost)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:49am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ebb-web-server/126010/26 "2008-01-22T05:49:55Z")
On Jan 21, 2008 11:53 PM, Zed A. Shaw [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > Please Zed, I’m not validating nor arguing against that decision. I > > just exposing that, the way I asked on #thin irc channel too a few > > weeks back. > > Sorry Luis, but I didn’t say “Luis, you’re a bullshitter.” I said, > “That’s bullshit.” Meaning, the claim of a large performance increase > from just removing a series of if-statements isn’t worth the loss in > security and safety. I know Zed, Monday was not a good day 😛 (so no personal offense, just bad wording from my side). I was thinking sending an email with this thing I discovered on thin code, but found the opportunity to ask here (on ry thread instead). Don’t you hate when you don’t have enough time to do all the things you love? > You should know by now that if I _really_ wanted to be mean to you I’d > say it directly to you. I’m talking about the code, nobody directly or > their personalities. Yes Zed, thankfuly you wouldn’t, right? 😃 I’m such a nice, lovely person, you couldn’t be mean to me 😉 Take care man, ## – Luis L. Multimedia systems A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. Douglas Adams ---
**Author:** ![casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/casper_the_ghost)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 4:01pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ebb-web-server/126010/27 "2008-01-22T16:01:26Z")
> I see what you’re saying but unfortunately without numbers on the > ordinate – specifically without knowing where zero is – it’s > impossible to evaluate even the relative differences. Oh yeah, sorry, zero is at the the bottom. yes, the graph could be clearer… below is my data - each line is an average of multiple runs of ab with -n 1000. (in truth, i avoid exposing my numbers because i’m a bit embarrassed of my ancient computer. i think if you run them on a modern computer, these numbers will be in the thousands.) ebb -c 1 = 113.5025 ebb -c 10 = 93.956 ebb -c 19 = 101.156 ebb -c 28 = 110.335 ebb -c 37 = 119.89 ebb -c 46 = 93.464 ebb -c 55 = 87.46 ebb -c 64 = 93.116 ebb -c 73 = 94.01 ebb -c 82 = 80.8566666666667 ebb -c 91 = 92.064 ebb -c 100 = 98.666 evented mongrel -c 1 = 80.586 evented mongrel -c 10 = 82.418 evented mongrel -c 19 = 76.1075 evented mongrel -c 28 = 82.0766666666667 evented mongrel -c 37 = 88.45 evented mongrel -c 46 = 69.486 evented mongrel -c 55 = 72.81 evented mongrel -c 64 = 67.07 evented mongrel -c 73 = 67.3566666666667 evented mongrel -c 82 = 65.74 evented mongrel -c 91 = 65.666 evented mongrel -c 100 = 64.388 thin -c 1 = 92.1575 thin -c 10 = 74.284 thin -c 19 = 76.8 thin -c 28 = 91.85 thin -c 37 = 91.55 thin -c 46 = 74.802 thin -c 55 = 74.9 thin -c 64 = 69.886 thin -c 73 = 70.2933333333333 thin -c 82 = 63.6933333333333 thin -c 91 = 70.206 thin -c 100 = 70.262 ry ---
**Author:** ![casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/casper_the_ghost)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 11:14am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ebb-web-server/126010/28 "2008-01-22T11:14:15Z")
On 21 Jan 2008, at 22:11, ry dahl wrote: > > Grrrr, you need a Y axis Ry. What is that measuring. Hell, shoot me > > the raw data and I’ll do the graph with R (since I’m curious). > > The vertical axis is requests/sec (says at the top of the graph). I > don’t bother to give actual numbers because it’s only to demonstrate > the relative increase in speed. You can generate your own data with > the script in ruby\_bridge/benchmark/test\_camping.rb I see what you’re saying but unfortunately without numbers on the ordinate – specifically without knowing where zero is – it’s impossible to evaluate even the relative differences. Anyway, I’ll have a go and generating my own data with that script. Thanks. Regards, Andy S. ---
**Author:** ![casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/casper_the_ghost)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 4:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ebb-web-server/126010/29 "2008-01-22T16:45:19Z")
> For sake of completeness, can you compare it with plain mongrel? Yes, i’ll do that in future benchmarks. The monkey patching that swiftiply does makes it not so easy to run regular mongrel and evented mongrel from the same script. Speaking of future benchmarks, I will not make announcements to mongrel-users about Ebb anymore. Instead I will post on my livejournal under the tag ‘ebb’ [http://four.livejournal.com/tag/ebb](http://four.livejournal.com/tag/ebb) If you would like to exclude my other livejournal dribble and only get Ebb updates, use this feed: [http://max.kanat.us/tag-syndicate/?user=four&tag=ebb](http://max.kanat.us/tag-syndicate/?user=four&tag=ebb) The git repo itself also has a feed, which I will try to make interesting [Public Git Hosting - ebb.git/rss log](http://repo.or.cz/w/ebb.git?a=rss) > I was doing the first test compatibility for mongrel back in 2006 from > a P3 800Mhz 512MB RAM computer! but that’s what i’m running now (eep!) ry ---
**Author:** ![casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/casper_the_ghost)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 4:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ebb-web-server/126010/30 "2008-01-22T16:04:59Z")
On Jan 22, 2008 1:00 PM, ry dahl [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > I see what you’re saying but unfortunately without numbers on the > > ordinate – specifically without knowing where zero is – it’s > > impossible to evaluate even the relative differences. > > Oh yeah, sorry, zero is at the the bottom. yes, the graph could be > clearer… below is my data - each line is an average of multiple runs > of ab with -n 1000. Great data Ry, thanks for it. For sake of completeness, can you compare it with plain mongrel? > (in truth, i avoid exposing my numbers because i’m a bit embarrassed > of my ancient computer. i think if you run them on a modern computer, > these numbers will be in the thousands.) You shouldn’t! I was doing the first test compatibility for mongrel back in 2006 from a P3 800Mhz 512MB RAM computer! Not mention that first version of mongrel\_service was created on that computer! So: don’t be hard on you 😉 ## – Luis L. Multimedia systems A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. Douglas Adams [Previous page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ebb-web-server/126010.md?page=1)