Comments on: Plone 4: three times faster than Drupal, Joomla and WordPress

By: Chameleon page templates make Plone 4 another 20% faster | Jon Stahl's Journal

Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:45:00 +0000

[...] 4 out of the box is already one of the fastest content management systems around. And it’s still getting faster. Malthe Borch has cut a [...]

By: ccomb : Comparing Plone and Drupal speed evolutions

ccomb : Comparing Plone and Drupal speed evolutions — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 23:11:37 +0000

[...] it. I had seen a few benchmarks comparing Plone 4 to previous versions, and comparing Plone with Joomla, Drupal or WordPress. So I just wanted to check it by [...]

By: ccomb : Formations Python : la fiche du débutant

ccomb : Formations Python : la fiche du débutant — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:18:04 +0000

[...] parfois avec très peu de maintenance… Et avec la sortie récente de Plone 4, on atteint un niveau de performance [...]

By: life « Yolanda

life « Yolanda — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:25:22 +0000

[...] Jon Stahl’s Journal » Blog Archive » Plone 4: three times faster than Drupal, Joomla and WordPre… [...]

By: Beginning development with Plone 4 & Dexterity « Isotoma Blog

Beginning development with Plone 4 & Dexterity « Isotoma Blog — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:21:51 +0000

[...] Isotoma were that firstly, it was a heck of a lot faster than its predecessor. In fact, John Stahl recently blogged that Plone 4 is potentially three times faster than Drupal, Joomla and WordPress. The other main, [...]

By: David

David — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 03:41:58 +0000

Very interesting article, an insightful read. Old perceptions from colleagues (and others) certainly do die hard though — even with such evidence.
Here’s looking at you, Plone 4 & 5.

By: Performance and memory usage for KARL « Chatterbox, Reloaded

Performance and memory usage for KARL « Chatterbox, Reloaded — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:14:19 +0000

[...] and memory usage for KARL By Paul Everitt I’ve enjoyed seeing some writeups on requests/second and memory usage for upcoming versions of Plone. It’s great to see [...]

By: Alexander Limi

Alexander Limi — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:52:38 +0000

Jukka,

The speed benchmarks you post with concurrency are relevant too, but most production instances of Plone run with 2-N ZEO clients, which will help this a lot. What you're testing now is a 2-thread (maybe 3-4?) Plone against a PHP app that creates/destroys the thread on every request, which does scale "wider" out of the box, if that makes sense.

Even our installer sets up ZEO with clients for you, so this is "out-of-the-box", but we don't make decisions on load balancing for you. But correct, we start getting into more advanced setups then.

Jon's point was simply to counter the (incorrect) perception out there that "Plone is slow", where in reality it's actually as fast as or faster out of the box than Joomla/Drupal/Wordpress, which are by some considered to be pretty lightweight and fast.

And I think he succeeded with that task.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:24:39 +0000

@Jon

I totally agree!

By: Jon Stahl

Jon Stahl — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:29:20 +0000

@matt
Big-scale content repositories like Grist’s are not unusual in the Plone world, and that’s one of the reasons why the Plone team has invested a great deal of effort in improving the “raw” speed of Plone. As you point out, folks with big repositories like grist have a pretty big “long tail” of people visiting old articles — and as you point out, that makes effective caching significantly more challenging and/or more expensive in terms of resources (e.g. you need a larger cache to hold more stuff). As a result, your visitors have a much higher likelihood of hitting uncached content.

Which is actually why the “raw, uncached” speed of your CMS (which is what I am measuring in a very, very crude way here) may actually matter somewhat, despite the vital role of caching.