At 09:53 AM 12/21/00 -0500, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>[ Sorry for accidentally spamming people on the
> list. I was ticked off by this "benchmark",
> and accidentally forgot to clean up the reply
> names. I won't let it happen again :( ]
Not sure what you mean here. Some people like the duplicate reply names
especially as the mod_perl list is still a bit slow on responding. I know I
prefer to see replies to my messages ASAP and they tend to come faster if I
am CCed on the list.
>All kidding aside, the problem with modperl is memory consumption,
>and to use modperl seriously, you currently have to code around
>that (preloading commonly used modules like CGI, or running it in
>a frontend/backend config similar to FastCGI.) FastCGI and modperl
>are fundamentally different technologies. Both have the ability
>to accelerate CGI scripts; however, modperl can do quite a bit
>more than that.
>
>Claimed benchmarks that are designed to exploit this memory issue
>are quite silly, especially when the actual results are never
>revealed. It's overzealous advocacy or FUD, depending on which
>side of the fence you are sitting on.
I think I get your point on the first paragraph. But the 2nd paragraph is
odd. Are you classifying the original post as being overzealous advocacy or
FUD? I don't think I would classify it as such.
I could see it bordering on FUD if there was one benchmark which Sam
produced and he just posted "SpeedyCGI is faster than mod_perl" without
providing any details.
But instead he crafted an experiment to show that in this particular case
(and some applications do satisfy this case) SpeedyCGI has a particular
benefit.
This is why people use different tools for different jobs -- because
architecturally they are designed for different things. SpeedyCGI is
designed in a different way from mod_perl. What I believe Sam is saying is
that there is a particular real-world scenario where SpeedyCGI likely has
better performance benefits to mod_perl.
Discouraging the posting of experimental information like this is where the
FUD will lie. This isn't an advertisement in ComputerWorld by Microsoft or
Oracle, it's a posting on a mailing list. Open for discussion.
