{ Josh Rendek }

<3 Ruby & Go

Mongrel vs Thin Performance

May 1, 2010 - 2 minutes

Thin won out in pretty much every category showing it can handle a larger volume of traffic faster than mongrel can.

————————————-
MONGREL

Server Software: Mongrel Server Hostname: 127.0.0.1 Server Port: 3000

Document Path: / Document Length: 1184 bytes

Concurrency Level: 10 Time taken for tests: 65.020 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 1722107 bytes HTML transferred: 1184000 bytes Requests per second: 15.38 #/sec Time per request: 650.195 ms Time per request: 65.020 ms Transfer rate: 25.87 [Kbytes/sec] received

Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 0 2.2 0 60 Processing: 290 647 76.9 618 966 Waiting: 174 599 67.2 576 930 Total: 291 648 77.0 618 968

Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 618 66% 675 75% 695 80% 704 90% 750 95% 795 98% 866 99% 896 100% 968 (longest request)


THIN

Server Software: thin Server Hostname: 127.0.0.1 Server Port: 3000

Document Path: / Document Length: 1184 bytes

Concurrency Level: 10 Time taken for tests: 53.618 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 1685045 bytes HTML transferred: 1184000 bytes Requests per second: 18.65 #/sec Time per request: 536.184 ms Time per request: 53.618 ms Transfer rate: 30.69 [Kbytes/sec] received

Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 0 0.7 0 17 Processing: 35 534 100.8 512 1115 Waiting: 35 485 110.8 502 879 Total: 36 535 100.9 513 1116

Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 513 66% 549 75% 570 80% 577 90% 657 95% 710 98% 799 99% 880 100% 1116 (longest request)

comments powered by Disqus