6 ms·

I also had a bad experience with mono. I tried to run a very heavy site on it when asp.net first became available for it. It totally crashed. I'm sure it's m

I also had a bad experience with mono. I tried to run a very heavy site on it when asp.net first became available for it. It totally crashed. I'm sure it's matured a lot since then. After that happened I saw a blog post by someone at microsoft about their testing. They have 1.6 testers for each dev working on asp.net and they've got a warehouse of servers running millions of different tests for months before shipping. Then I read about who was working on mono's asp.net implementation. Just two guys in a basement. No testers of course.

MikeW 16y ago
Your performance will vary a LOT because there are so many changeable pieces. Mono 2.8 brought some perf wins with ASP.NET. mod_mono is the only recommended way of hosting ASP.NET right now. Because I can deviate from the defaults so much if I wish, I was able to switch the Mono Garbage Collector from Bohem to sgen (mono --gc=sgen) and get roughly a 30% increase in reqs/sec. There is a team dedicated to ASP.NET on Mono and I've really found them great to deal with. When I was seeing perf and memory usage issues, over a period of a couple of weeks they helped narrow it down and made some very major gains there. Those are in git master right now and will be shipping with the next mono release. Devs often migrate from one project to another and it really is not two guys in a basement. They do call on resources from right across the project. I saw firsthand when talking to them about an issue, they discussed it with their asp.net guys, guys working on the VM, a guy working on the GC and a guy working on the new profiler and made adjustments to it to help track down the issue. It was all done in the open, they committed their patches, it fixed my issue, and this is why I love open source.