Slow zope on windows 2000?
Hello, I have a question for you zope administrators out there : What are your experiences whith zope running on Windows NT/2K? No matter what I try , zope will run significant faster on a Unixlike system (with the same hardware), especially when working alot with the ZCatalog. Do you guys have any proposals how to make zope run faster on windows? My own experience is also that zope runs faster with the "start.bat" way instead as a Windows NT Service. Strange, because I tried several numbers of threads with both ways with the same startup parameters. Thnx in advance, Martijn Jacobs East Site.
I made the same experience as you. Zope is much faster on Linux. With v2.5 the difference is much more prominent. Robert ----- Original Message ----- From: <mart@eastsite.nl> To: <zope-dev@zope.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 5:51 PM Subject: [Zope-dev] Slow zope on windows 2000?
Hello,
I have a question for you zope administrators out there : What are your experiences whith zope running on Windows NT/2K? No matter what I try , zope will run significant faster on a Unixlike system (with the same hardware), especially when working alot with the ZCatalog.
Do you guys have any proposals how to make zope run faster on windows? My own experience is also that zope runs faster with the "start.bat" way instead as a Windows NT Service. Strange, because I tried several numbers of threads with both ways with the same startup parameters.
Thnx in advance,
Martijn Jacobs East Site.
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
mart@eastsite.nl wrote:
I have a question for you zope administrators out there : What are your experiences whith zope running on Windows NT/2K? No matter what I try , zope will run significant faster on a Unixlike system (with the same hardware), especially when working alot with the ZCatalog.
While experimenting we've seen difference in startup speeds for CMF using a lot of PageTemplates (Plone) on Duron + W2K compared to Celeron +W2K. IMHO it is caused by the way Python is compiled in (more effective for Intel platform).
Do you guys have any proposals how to make zope run faster on windows? My own experience is also that zope runs faster with the "start.bat" way instead as a Windows NT Service. Strange, because I tried several numbers of threads with both ways with the same startup parameters.
No difference in service / standalone so far. No precise measurements were made. Just overall impression (10 vs 90 seconds for startup ;) There is possiblity that it was hardware playing the game. m. -- Myroslav Opyr zope.net.ua <http://zope.net.ua/> ° Ukrainian Zope Hosting e-mail: myroslav@zope.net.ua <mailto:myroslav@zope.net.ua>
From: <mart@eastsite.nl>
Hello,
I have a question for you zope administrators out there : What are your experiences whith zope running on Windows NT/2K? No matter what I try , zope will run significant faster on a Unixlike system (with the same hardware), especially when working alot with the ZCatalog.
Very much so! On a Win2k with Dual P3 1Ghz Zope runs slower than the same install on a Linux box with 1 P133 !!!! (I have tested this on multiple different configurations and every time it comes out the same)
Do you guys have any proposals how to make zope run faster on windows? My own experience is also that zope runs faster with the "start.bat" way instead as a Windows NT Service. Strange, because I tried several numbers of threads with both ways with the same startup parameters.
I have yet to find any platform independant product that runs faster on windows. The only things on windows that are faster are programs that use windows specific APIs (Mainly designed to _prevent_ platform independance). Best bet:- Go get a £300 ($450) pc and install Linux on it and use your Windows box for what windows is good at (Sugestions anyone???) - This is what I did, and the results were not at all disappointing.
Thnx in advance,
Adrian... -- Adrian Hungate EMail: adrian@haqa.co.uk Web: http://www.haqa.co.uk
Adrian Hungate wrote:
From: <mart@eastsite.nl>
Hello,
I have a question for you zope administrators out there : What are your experiences whith zope running on Windows NT/2K? No matter what I try , zope will run significant faster on a Unixlike system (with the same hardware), especially when working alot with the ZCatalog.
Very much so! On a Win2k with Dual P3 1Ghz Zope runs slower than the same install on a Linux box with 1 P133 !!!! (I have tested this on multiple different configurations and every time it comes out the same)
How can that be? If anything, Zope should run just slightly faster on Windows, since VC++ produces more optimized code than GCC 2.x, resulting in higher pystones. Could it be that one of the optional C extensions isn't working on Windows? (I have a Win NT CD and plenty of HD space but no desire to install it. ;-) ) Shane
From: "Shane Hathaway" <shane@zope.com>
Adrian Hungate wrote:
From: <mart@eastsite.nl>
Hello,
I have a question for you zope administrators out there : What are your experiences whith zope running on Windows NT/2K? No matter what I try , zope will run significant faster on a Unixlike system (with the same hardware), especially when working alot with the ZCatalog.
Very much so! On a Win2k with Dual P3 1Ghz Zope runs slower than the same install on a Linux box with 1 P133 !!!! (I have tested this on multiple different configurations and every time it comes out the same)
How can that be? If anything, Zope should run just slightly faster on Windows, since VC++ produces more optimized code than GCC 2.x, resulting in higher pystones.
Could it be that one of the optional C extensions isn't working on Windows? (I have a Win NT CD and plenty of HD space but no desire to install it. ;-) )
I'm not sure that is the case you know. Oracle 9i Linux is faster on my Linux Athlon 800 than the same release on my Win2k Dual Piii 1GHz. Also my Win box has 1Gb ram, while my Linux box has only 512Mb... VC++ does optimise some operations better than GCC (This is well documented) but that does not make up for the OS it is running on. Generally my experience has been that although Windows sometimes _feels_ faster, in my experience, in _practical_ tests other OS's have _always_ out-performed it. Windows Explorer may be faster than MacOS finder, or GMC etc on Linux, but very few practical operations revolve around listing directories on screen. If someone has a recipe to make my windows PC run faster than my Linux box, I'm willing to try it. Adrian... -- Adrian Hungate EMail: adrian@haqa.co.uk Web: http://www.haqa.co.uk
One thing to remember is that running multi-treaded Python apps on a multi-processor box is suboptimal unless you can bind all the threads to a single processor, due to the Python GIL. So, I'm not surprised that a 800MHz Athlon outperforms a dual 1GHz Piii with Zope, regardless of OS. As for Oracle, I cannot say. The only way to do a true comparison would be to run the same tests on the same app on the same hardware with the same load but with different OSes. One other difference is classically due to a more efficient select mechanism on Unix than Windows (ala asyncore), making multitasking more efficient on *nix. However, I don't know if that's true anymore post-NT4. -Casey On Wednesday 28 August 2002 12:44 pm, Adrian Hungate wrote:
From: "Shane Hathaway" <shane@zope.com>
Adrian Hungate wrote:
From: <mart@eastsite.nl>
Hello,
I have a question for you zope administrators out there : What are your experiences whith zope running on Windows NT/2K? No matter what I try , zope will run significant faster on a Unixlike system (with the same hardware), especially when working alot with the ZCatalog.
Very much so! On a Win2k with Dual P3 1Ghz Zope runs slower than the same install on a Linux box with 1 P133 !!!! (I have tested this on multiple different configurations and every time it comes out the same)
How can that be? If anything, Zope should run just slightly faster on Windows, since VC++ produces more optimized code than GCC 2.x, resulting in higher pystones.
Could it be that one of the optional C extensions isn't working on Windows? (I have a Win NT CD and plenty of HD space but no desire to install it. ;-) )
I'm not sure that is the case you know. Oracle 9i Linux is faster on my Linux Athlon 800 than the same release on my Win2k Dual Piii 1GHz.
Also my Win box has 1Gb ram, while my Linux box has only 512Mb...
VC++ does optimise some operations better than GCC (This is well documented) but that does not make up for the OS it is running on.
Generally my experience has been that although Windows sometimes _feels_ faster, in my experience, in _practical_ tests other OS's have _always_ out-performed it. Windows Explorer may be faster than MacOS finder, or GMC etc on Linux, but very few practical operations revolve around listing directories on screen.
If someone has a recipe to make my windows PC run faster than my Linux box, I'm willing to try it.
Adrian...
-- Adrian Hungate EMail: adrian@haqa.co.uk Web: http://www.haqa.co.uk
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Hello Casey,
One thing to remember is that running multi-treaded Python apps on a multi-processor box is suboptimal unless you can bind all the threads to a single processor, due to the Python GIL.
IOW : Buying a dual processor computer is not so usefull if the computer is dedicated running zope? And if you have to use a dual CPU computer, binding all the threads to a single processor increases zope performance? (If so, how can you do that? :)
The only way to do a true comparison would be to run the same tests on the same app on the same hardware with the same load but with different OSes.
That's true. I was wondering if you guys at zope comp. have any recent benchmarks yourself with the different Operating systems? Martijn.
On Wednesday 28 Aug 2002 6:46 pm, Casey Duncan wrote:
One other difference is classically due to a more efficient select mechanism on Unix than Windows (ala asyncore), making multitasking more efficient on *nix. However, I don't know if that's true anymore post-NT4.
Yes, thats still true. select is the native Unix way of handling asynchronous IO, but on Win32 select is a compatability layer provided for posix compatability, and to make it easy to port unix network services to windows. Win32's native concurrency and asynchronous IO capabilities are in many ways superior to the posix select. They are top of my list of things I regret leaving behind since moving my recent development from windows to linux.
I'm not sure that is the case you know. Oracle 9i Linux is faster on my Linux Athlon 800 than the same release on my Win2k Dual Piii 1GHz.
Also my Win box has 1Gb ram, while my Linux box has only 512Mb...
In other news.... Apache is reported to run faster on Linux that Win2000, as is PostgreSQL. Samba is reported to provide double the throughput of Win2000 native file services, with half the response delay for client requests.
Very much so! On a Win2k with Dual P3 1Ghz Zope runs slower than the same install on a Linux box with 1 P133 !!!! (I have tested this on multiple different configurations and every time it comes out the same)
This, however, is almost an order of magnitude difference, and may need further investigation... Adam
participants (9)
-
Adam Manock -
Adrian Hungate -
Casey Duncan -
mart＠eastsite.nl -
Martijn Jacobs
-
Myroslav Opyr -
Robert Rottermann -
Shane Hathaway -
Toby Dickenson