On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Sam Horrocks wrote:
> > Folks, your discussion is not short of wrong statements that can be easily
> > proved, but I don't find it useful.
>
> I don't follow. Are you saying that my conclusions are wrong, but
> you don't want to bother explaining why?
>
> Would you agree with the following statement?
>
> Under apache-1, speedycgi scales better than mod_perl with
> scripts that contain un-shared memory
I don't know. It's easy to give a simple example and claim being better.
So far whoever tried to show by benchmarks that he is better, most often
was proved wrong, since the technologies in question have so many
features, that I believe no benchmark will prove any of them absolutely
superior or inferior. Therefore I said that trying to tell that your grass
is greener is doomed to fail if someone has time on his hands to prove you
wrong. Well, we don't have this time.
Therefore I'm not trying to prove you wrong or right. Gunther's point of
the original forward was to show things that mod_perl may need to adopt to
make it better. Doug already explained in his paper that the MRU approach
has been already implemented in mod_perl-2.0. You could read it in the
link that I've attached and the quote that I've quoted.
So your conclusions about MRU are correct and we have it implemented
already (well very soon now :). I apologize if my original reply was
misleading.
I'm not telling that benchmarks are bad. What I'm telling is that it's
very hard to benchmark things which are different. You benefit the most
from the benchmarking when you take the initial code/product, benchmark
it, then you try to improve the code and benchmark again to see whether it
gave you any improvement. That's the area when the benchmarks rule and
their are fair because you test the same thing. Well you could read more
of my rambling about benchmarks in the guide.
So if you find some cool features in other technologies that mod_perl
might adopt and benefit from, don't hesitate to tell the rest of the gang.
----
Something that I'd like to comment on:
I find it a bad practice to quote one sentence from person's post and
follow up on it. Someone from the list has sent me this email (SB> == me):
SB> I don't find it useful
and follow up. Why not to use a single letter:
SB> I
and follow up? It's so much easier to flame on things taken out of their
context.
it has been no once that people did this to each other here on the list, I
think I did too. So please be more careful when taking things out of
context. Thanks a lot, folks!
Cheers...
_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://apachetoday.com http://logilune.com/
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
