This document compares performance of Node.js, Apache + PHP, Manhattan, and Mojito frameworks. Node.js showed superior performance scaling to over 3,000 requests per second with low latency. Manhattan and Mojito also outperformed Apache + PHP in some tests. The document concludes Node.js is well-suited for I/O bound use cases that require handling many concurrent requests quickly and reliably.

1. Performance Case Study
@Fabian_Frank
<fabian@pagefault.de>
Yahoo! Search, Engineer
Youthmedia.eu,Volunteer

2. A Dynamic Website

3. self-contained App

4. self-contained App

5. self-contained App

6. node v0.4.X
multi-core
http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/07/multicore_http_server_with_nodejs/

7. Time Sharing
• Workers
• Event Queue

8. Event Queue
• does only one thing at a time
• events that occur are queued for
processing
• after an event was processed the next one
is fetched from the queue

9. The difference
Workers Event Queue
1. synchronous call 1. asynchronous call that
specifies event(s) that can
2. worker blocked occur (callback)
3. periodically check if 2. process next event
worker can go ahead
3. specified event occurs and
4. call returns is put on the queue
5. worker goes ahead on 4. process goes ahead
next check

10. Another difference
Workers Event Queue
• 1 connection per • N connections per
worker process
• N workers per CPU • 1 process (per CPU)

11. Regarding...
• static file serving benchmarks
• are not relevant, unless you plan to do
heavy duty static file serving (I’m not)
• hello world benchmarks
• still ignore most of what matters, e.g.
accessing a database or other back-ends

12. Realistic
Real World Benchmark
• a lot of variables that have to be controlled
• more complex, likely to surface weird bugs
• face unanswerable questions
• are expensive to do
• are easy to attack, but hard to defend

13. My Reasoning
• “I can not compare everything out there
against everything else. But I can compare
what I want to use in the future against what
I am using today.”

14. Search Case Study
• Right Panel retrieved using AJAX
• { ‘html’: ‘<div>...</div>’, ‘css’: ‘...’, ‘js:’ ‘...’, ... }

15. Refresh Right Panel
1. receive a request JSON API
2. call a JSON API over HTTP 2.
3. manipulate the data structure Node.js 3.
4.
4. render it as HTML using Mustache 1. 5.
5. write back wrapped in JSON Client

16. Refresh Right Panel
1. receive a request JSON API
2. call a JSON API over HTTP 2.
3. manipulate the data structure xy 3.
ro 4.
Node.js
P
4. render it as HTML using Mustache 1. 5.
5. write back wrapped in JSON Client

17. Constraints
• Network bandwidth and latency
• Gigabit and 1ms
• JSON API performance
• load-balanced cluster with cache

18. Implementations
• Apache + PHP
• Node.js (+ YUI)
• Manhattan + Mojito

19. Apache + PHP
• works, in production for decades
• initial response times are “good enough”
• scales, but you need $$$
• baseline to get a feeling for the numbers

20. Apache + PHP
• 430req/s @ 60ms average latency
• 99% @ 114ms

21. Node.js (+ YUI)
• works, but very new and untested stack
• initial response times are very low
• scales extremely well
• YUI works well, but still has pitfalls

22. Node.js Fun Facts
• >3100 requests per second
• 100k requests in 32s
• 9MByte/s network traffic
• serve >2k req/s at 20ms average latency
• 99% @ 47ms

23. Node.js

24. Node.js

25. Node.js Histogram
~1500req/s | 25 conc.
12000
99% @ 35ms
10000
8000
frequency
6000
4000
2000
0
11.000 - 17.300 - 23.600 - 29.900 - 36.200 - 42.500 - 48.800 - 55.100 - 61.400 - 67.700 - 74.000 -
17.300 23.600 29.900 36.200 42.500 48.800 55.100 61.400 67.700 74.000 80.300

26. Node.js Histogram
~2900/s | 100 conc.
9000
8000
99% @ 79ms
7000
6000
frequency
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
12.000 - 22.000 - 32.000 - 42.000 - 52.000 - 62.000 - 72.000 - 82.000 - 92.000 - 102.000 - 112.000 -
22.000 32.000 42.000 52.000 62.000 72.000 82.000 92.000 102.000 112.000 122.000

27. Node.js Histogram
~3100/s | 200 conc.
8000
7000
99% @ 152ms
6000
5000
frequency
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
14.000 - 33.900 - 53.800 - 73.700 - 93.600 - 113.500 - 133.400 - 153.300 - 173.200 - 193.100 - 213.000 -
33.900 53.800 73.700 93.600 113.500 133.400 153.300 173.200 193.100 213.000 232.900

28. Manhattan + Mojito
• works, but extremely new and untested
stack
• initial response times are low (60%
compared to Apache/PHP)
• scales well (twice as good as Apache/PHP)

29. Manhattan + Mojito

30. Manhattan + Mojito

31. Findings
• Both node.js implementations scale linearly
before CPU usage hits 100%
• Node.js scales extremely well as proxy
• Manhattan and Mojito can perform better
than Apache and PHP (for this use case)
• Node.js applications are very sensitive to
memory leaks or complex/blocking code

32. DNS in Node.js
• getaddrinfo() sys call is synchronous
• gethostbyname() is, too
• ares_gethostbyname() is asynchronous
• no cache
• node 0.6 uses a getaddrinfo() thread pool,
but still relies on ares for other calls

33. Cocktails
• Manhattan
• Mojito

34. Manhattan?
• Yahoo!’s Node.js cloud
• can run any node.js application
• allows calls to HTTP APIs (e.g.YQL)
• deployment of versioned apps
• apps can specify their environment
http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2011/11/yahoo-announces-cocktails-%E2%80%93-shaken-not-stirred/

35. Mojito?
• Yahoo!‘s Node.js MVC framework
• provides identical similar runtime for your
code on the client and server
• contains all server- and client-side code
• built on top of YUI
• will be open sourced
http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2011/11/yahoo-announces-cocktails-%E2%80%93-shaken-not-stirred/

36. The Cocktails way
Mojito Application
Mojit
Assets
Model Client JS Images
Controller
View CSS ...

37. Conclusion
• Node.js can serve hundreds of concurrent
requests quickly and reliable, “better” than
Apache/PHP
• It scales extremely well for I/O bound use
cases
• It tears down the client-server language
barrier, opening new architectural
possibilities

38. Thank you!
Picture: "Esther Müller" / www.jugendfotos.de, CC-License(by-nc)