We launched new forums in March 2019—join us there. In a hurry for help with your website? Get Help Now!
MODX Community Forums Archive

Speed Test: Revolution vs 0.9.6

    • 12827
    • 23 Posts
    imi Reply #1, 15 years, 6 months ago
    What I did
    I’ve installed locally (on my own computer) two versions of modx - revolution (alpha-4) and 0.9.6.1
    Then i’ve created empty templates in both versions and made 1 page with the following content:
    [^s^] * SQL:[^qt^]/ [^q^] * parse: [^p^] * total: [^t^]

    Then called the page (something like http://localhost/) 10 times by pressing F5

    Results:

    MODx 0.9.6
    cache * SQL:0.0016 s/ 0 * parse: 0.0430 s * total: 0.0445 s 
cache * SQL:0.0016 s/ 0 * parse: 0.0414 s * total: 0.0429 s 
cache * SQL:0.0015 s/ 0 * parse: 0.0404 s * total: 0.0419 s 
cache * SQL:0.0015 s/ 0 * parse: 0.0381 s * total: 0.0396 s 
cache * SQL:0.0015 s/ 0 * parse: 0.0380 s * total: 0.0395 s 
cache * SQL:0.0015 s/ 0 * parse: 0.0430 s * total: 0.0445 s
cache * SQL:0.0019 s/ 0 * parse: 0.0457 s * total: 0.0476 s 
cache * SQL:0.0015 s/ 0 * parse: 0.0456 s * total: 0.0471 s 
cache * SQL:0.0015 s/ 0 * parse: 0.0516 s * total: 0.0532 s 
cache * SQL:0.0015 s/ 0 * parse: 0.0463 s * total: 0.0478 s


    modx Revolution:
    * cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.1244 s * total: 0.1244 s 
* cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.1509 s * total: 0.1509 s 
* cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.1557 s * total: 0.1557 s 
* cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.1623 s * total: 0.1623 s 
* cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.1634 s * total: 0.1634 s 
* cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.1572 s * total: 0.1572 s 
* cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.1242 s * total: 0.1242 s 
* cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.1519 s * total: 0.1519 s 
* cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.1621 s * total: 0.1621 s
* cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.1790 s * total: 0.1790 s


    Сonclusion
    0.9.6 three times faster then revolution when using empty templates without content! Disappointing result.

    The Question
    How Revolution will handle complicated templates with many snippets calls? Will it still be usable? huh

      • 2364
      • 73 Posts
      atma Reply #2, 15 years, 6 months ago
      It;s strange. I tried it on remote VPS and get for revolution (page with loremipsum content; template minimal from MODx docs):
      cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.0599 s * total: 0.0599 s
      cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.0595 s * total: 0.0595 s
      cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.0607 s * total: 0.0607 s
      ...
      0.9.6 a little bit slowly...
      • Ryan Thrash Reply #3, 15 years, 6 months ago
        Perform the same test but make a site with 500, 2500 and 20,000 pages with more than empty content. Being really fast at doing nothing isn’t a good test. What you’ll likely find is that for smaller sites, Evolution/096 is marginally faster, though sub-tenth of a second times is pretty quick. For larger sites, Revo just keeps on performing and doesn’t degrade as quickly with large sites like happens with the legacy version.
          Ryan Thrash, MODX Co-Founder
          Follow me on Twitter at @rthrash or catch my occasional unofficial thoughts at thrash.me
          • 12827
          • 23 Posts
          imi Reply #4, 15 years, 6 months ago
          Ok, the next step - 500 documents.
          I’ve retrieved 500 html-files from an existing site and imported them into Revo and 0.9.6
          Templates used: Revo - empty, 0.9.6 - standart demo template "MODxCSS"

          Retrieving 150Kb file...

          0.9.6 result:
          MySQL: 0.0675 s, 10 request(s), PHP: 0.6642 s, total: 0.7317 s, document retrieved from database.
MySQL: 0.0702 s, 2 request(s), PHP: 0.2674 s, total: 0.3377 s, document retrieved from cache.
MySQL: 0.0514 s, 2 request(s), PHP: 0.3756 s, total: 0.4270 s, document retrieved from cache.
MySQL: 0.0447 s, 2 request(s), PHP: 0.3313 s, total: 0.3760 s, document retrieved from cache.
MySQL: 0.0364 s, 2 request(s), PHP: 0.3454 s, total: 0.3818 s, document retrieved from cache.


          Revolution result:
          * database * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 1.3227 s * total: 1.3227 s 
* cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.8971 s * total: 0.8971 s 
* cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.9577 s * total: 0.9577 s 
* cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.9442 s * total: 0.9442 s 
* cache * SQL:0.0000 s/ 0 * parse: 0.9335 s * total: 0.9335 s


          Remind that i used "MODxCSS" template for 0.9.6 - it has Wayfinder and Ditto calls... with the blank template it shows total = 0.25 - 0.33 s

          P.S. I see that atma posted the different result and it seems strange for me. So please someone else make such test and post result here...
            • 29076
            • 615 Posts
            Sylvaticus Reply #5, 15 years, 6 months ago
            For my part, I don’t see the reasson to do this tests on revolution alpha. I guess (I’m shure) when modx revolution comes out stable it will be more than fast enough. At least for me. smiley
              I think, thererfor I am! But what I am, and why...?
              • 7231
              • 4,205 Posts
              dev_cw Reply #6, 15 years, 6 months ago
              I have to agree with Sylvaticus, I don’t really see the point of this test at this time (it is a valid test but I just don’t think this is the best time to do it). I am not a big fan of these types of diagnosis I don’t think that they really say much. Also as far as comparing the two you are not sure that the measurements are recording the same processes. Maybe in 096 the measurements are less accurate.
                [font=Verdana]Shane Sponagle | [wiki] Snippet Call Anatomy | MODx Developer Blog | [nettuts] Working With a Content Management Framework: MODx
                Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is.
                Do you, Mr. Jones? - [bob dylan]
                • 12827
                • 23 Posts
                imi Reply #7, 15 years, 6 months ago
                At least for me
                If you are going to use Revo for a homepage, use it. But I do not think that SUCH system is developing for such purpose.
                I am not a big fan of these types of diagnosis I don’t think that they really say much. Also as far as comparing the two you are not sure that the measurements are recording the same processes. Maybe in 096 the measurements are less accurate
                One second parse time says much. REALY MUCH. Of cause the processes are different, but the Revo process is less effective. And i don’t understand where i lost the measurement accuracy... but it may well be so... That’s why I ask you all to do this test.

                And it’s the right time to do this test because at the moment the developers can (may be) analyse the problem and make corrections in the core of Revo. It will be more difficult to correct the stable release...
                I remember that many people complained that 0.9.6 is too slow when having many documents. My test shows that Revo is much slower. Isn’t it a problem?

                Please understand me - I do not want to abuse Revo or its developers. I want to help them to find a (bottleneck) problem and correct it.
                • opengeek Reply #8, 15 years, 6 months ago
                  When we get to beta and freeze feature development, we will change focus from flexibility and scalability (in which Revolution will win hands down) to optimization, but not until then.  I’ve done extensive profiling of this code over the past two years, and am very aware of how it will perform in a variety of deployment scenarios, from simple shared server accounts, to grid server accounts, to complex load-balanced environments with memcached (which 0.9.6 cannot take advantage of without a lot of custom work).  I also have ideas of how to optimize it further without blocking further innovation or limiting scalability/flexibility, so this is definitely going to improve before (and after) beta.

                  That said, at this point, imi is correct: 0.9.6 on baseline raw speed tests is about 3x faster than Revo alpha.  But as the quantity of both Resources and scripts being executed per page increase, that speed advantage declines exponentially until at a certain point, Revo, without using any extra cacheing features, will begin to outperform the legacy code.  In addition, the use of opcode caches like eAccelerator, should make Revo further outperform the legacy code, which would not be able to take advantage of such systems with the same efficiency.

                  IMO, some folks may find the current raw speed advantage of the legacy architecture enough to justify choosing it over Revolution, and with small, simple sites, that may indeed be the best solution for now.  But I prefer the robustness and flexibility of developing and maintaining things with the new architecture; I’ll be able to take advantage of more internal features and more external facilities for better overall scalability and performance with Revolution.
                    Jason Coward
                    Chief Architect @ MODX
                    http://www.jasoncoward.com | http://twitter.com/drumshaman | https://github.com/opengeek
                    • 26903
                    • 1,336 Posts
                    shamblett Reply #9, 15 years, 6 months ago
                    I agree with OpenGeek here, the key is scalability, if you design with this in mind your on to a winner, OK it may not work so well at the lower end but these are the trade offs you have to consider. Apps like MODx by their nature are constrained by the environment in which they run i.e they depend on webservers like apache and databases like MYSQL. If you are on say a 16 or 32 processor machine with 16 to 32GB of RAM(which is not that uncommon) it wont’ help you much if apache/mysql only use 1 processor to do everything, I know they don’t but you’d be surprised by the number of apps that still do this, tweaking MODx won’t help much here.

                    Ideally MODx should be able to run on everything from mobile phones to grid installations and adapt itself to the environment it finds itself in. I know this is a bit holy grail’ish but this doesnt mean these things shouldnt be considered and designed in. You can rarely have everything.

                    PS to OpenGeek, interesting use of the word ’legacy’ in your post, I don’t think the 0.9.6 series is legacy just yet, I think it may be around for some time!
                      Use MODx, or the cat gets it!
                      • 12827
                      • 23 Posts
                      imi Reply #10, 15 years, 6 months ago
                      OpenGeek, thank you for reply.
                      I have no more questions