[Chicago] Tornado, shines good on Python?

[Massimo Di Pierro]

Is the web server the bottle neck in web applications? My experience  
is that the bottle neck is the database.

My understanding is that Tornado is not a multithreaded server. It can  
accept concurrent requests but executes them sequentially for each  
process. It is know that this kind of design is fast because there are  
no threads but it is not appropriate for all web apps in particular  
not if the requests may take time to run. It works great in "hello  
world" type of benchmarks.

Another issue is that Tornado is probably using 4 python instances  
thus taking advantages of the 4 cores. The Django and CherryPy are  
probably not doing that because they would require a load balancer  
like Pound. I doubt they did so I am not convinced they are comparing  
apples to apples.

Am I wrong?

Massimo

On Sep 12, 2009, at 7:30 PM, Brian Ray wrote:

>
> Any thoughts on this...
>
>     http://www.tornadoweb.org/
>
> From http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/145214 Bret Taylor,
> Facebook's Director of Products:
>
>     """Tornado also offers much higher performance than existing
> Python web frameworks. A multiple process Tornado server on a 4 core
> 2.4Ghz AMD Opteron system managed 8213 web requests per second, while
> a single threaded version managed 3353. This compares with Django at
> 2223 requests per second, Web.py at 2066 and CherryPy at 785."""
>
> -- Brian Ray
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicago mailing list
> Chicago at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago