On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Anton Katsarov <t...@katsarov.org> wrote: > В 08:30 -0800 на 05.02.2009 (чт), J. Shirley написа: >> 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. > > I don't want to argue, but HTML loads for about 1 sec. All the other > time is for loading images and flash banners. I can also confess that > the Internet connection in my town is not so good. > >
The time to first byte (not HTML processing) in all reporting tools I used shows >3s (anywhere from 3.1 to 4.8). Also, time to start render is a good metric, too (that is is when the HTML document is loaded sufficiently). Look at what Bill posted above as far as metrics. If you want to build an application that scales out, you need to understand these things. If you just build one for yourself, it's up to you. Also, I'm not arguing, it is simply a fact that running a Catalyst application via CGI results in very slow load times. That is why the recommendation is using FastCGI. If it loads fast enough for you, that's awesome. -J _______________________________________________ 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/