2009/2/5 J. Shirley <jshir...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Anton Katsarov <t...@katsarov.org> wrote:
>> В 13:20 -0800 на 04.02.2009 (ср), J. Shirley написа:
>>
>>> It's hideously slow. It took 16 seconds to load, and most of that was
>>> the first byte.
>>
>> I do agree. But that is because of the statics. I did some changes to
>> my .htaccess to serve the static directly from the webserver and now it
>> loads for 5 seconds to me. Here are the changes:
>>
>> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^/?(cgi-bin/test.cgi|static|root)
>> RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /cgi-bin/test.cgi/$1 [PT,L]
>>
>> RewriteRule ^/?static/(.*)$ /root/static/$1 [PT,L]
>> RewriteRule ^/?root/(lib|src).*$ /404 [PT,L]
>>
>> That is not the best decision, but I thins now is fast enough.
>
> If 5 seconds works for you, cool.
>
> Just as a benchmark, all my apps send full HTML in under .8 seconds
> (or I tune them until they do). It's relatively easy to get FCGI
> support and a lot of cheap hosts provide it.
>
> Not using it is just silly.
I agree with what J Shirley is saying, 5s is still "too slow".
If nothing else, it's a question of concurrent load you can handle as
much as of page load times.
You get 5s when you're the only person hitting the box. What's
performance like when the site gets busy? That's when the forking time
of CGI really hurts.
/joel
_______________________________________________
List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
