At Sat, 22 Apr 2006 19:30:22 +0200, Peter Busser wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 10:15:26AM -0700, Shawn Rutledge wrote: > > On 4/22/06, Peter Busser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For instance, in many companies, it is mandatory to use something like > > > Apache. It would be useful if this framework would work with the SCGI egg, > > > so it can be integrated with Apache through the mod-scgi module for > > > Apache. > > Has anybody benchmarked Apache vs. Spiffy? (Hopefully a compiled > > spiffy to get the best results, and only static html for the test.) > > Not me. But I bet that Apache is much faster than Spiffy with static > content, because I think it uses system specific optimisations like e.g. > sendfile(). Apache is likely to scale better too.
What does "scale better" mean? Apache 1.x uses multi-processes, which are severely limited, and Apache 2.x uses POSIX threads, which are still very heavy compared to the lightweight threads Spiffy uses. In this sense, Spiffy is closer to Yaws (http://yaws.hyber.org), a webserver written in Erlang, and in the following benchmark Yaws is shown to completely outscale Apache 2.0, handling over 80,000 requests compared to Apache's 4000: http://www.sics.se/~joe/apachevsyaws.html For Ajax sites, small dynamic requests are the norm and this scalability is essential. -- Alex P.S. sendfile(2) would be very easy to add to Spiffy for those interested. P.P.S. you can always use Spiffy along with Apache via mod_proxy and mod_rewrite. synthcode.com runs on a Scheme webserver on the same machine as several friends who all use Apache (and, sadly, rails). _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
