Jason Sibre wrote:
> I'd REALLY apprecciate it if anyone who has twisted and quixote installed,
> and has a few minutes to spare to screw with this, would try it out and let
> me know: a) if they see the difference in performance between 'oldqx' and
> 'twisted' (modes the program can run in) and b) if 'newqx' seems to give
> performance more on par with 'twisted' (though it's still a bit slower).

I ran the tests on a 2.2GHz WinXP box, Python 2.3.3 and Twisted version 1.1.1.

Sorry, I couldn't detect any difference between the three of them. Ensured
full-reloads were taking place.

Incidentally -- warning, this anecdotal stuff is worth less than nothing! -- I
ran apachebench against it (ab -n 100 http://localhost:8082/index.html), and
got much better performance from oldqx and newqx (~150 req/s) than with twisted
(~105 req/s).

More oddness, when I tried concurrent connections (ab -n 100 -c 10
http://localhost:8082/index.html), only the "twisted" version returned a
response (~50 req/sec), while the qx versions just hung. Not sure what happened
there, and don't have time to look into it... could be a problem with 'ab' on
Win32, for all I know.

-- Graham