You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It seems there isn’t a dedicated performance benchmark available at the moment. Of course, I understand that the Rails philosophy doesn’t place heavy emphasis on performance, but if someone opts to use Loco instead of Rails or Django, performance would likely be one of the key reasons.
It would be beneficial to have benchmarks comparing Loco and Rails + Puma in terms of requests per second, CPU/memory usage per request, and the impact of increasing Puma workers/threads versus scaling up the Tokio thread pool or whatever. Such comparisons would provide clearer insights into Loco’s performance advantages.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
It seems there isn’t a dedicated performance benchmark available at the moment. Of course, I understand that the Rails philosophy doesn’t place heavy emphasis on performance, but if someone opts to use Loco instead of Rails or Django, performance would likely be one of the key reasons.
It would be beneficial to have benchmarks comparing Loco and Rails + Puma in terms of requests per second, CPU/memory usage per request, and the impact of increasing Puma workers/threads versus scaling up the Tokio thread pool or whatever. Such comparisons would provide clearer insights into Loco’s performance advantages.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions