Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_perl withscriptsthat contain un-shared memory

[Jeremy Howard]

Perrin Harkins wrote:
> What I was saying is that it doesn't make sense for one to need fewer
> interpreters than the other to handle the same concurrency.  If you have
> 10 requests at the same time, you need 10 interpreters.  There's no way
> speedycgi can do it with fewer, unless it actually makes some of them
> wait.  That could be happening, due to the fork-on-demand model, although
> your warmup round (priming the pump) should take care of that.
>
I don't know if Speedy fixes this, but one problem with mod_perl v1 is that
if, for instance, a large POST request is being uploaded, this takes a whole
perl interpreter while the transaction is occurring. This is at least one
place where a Perl interpreter should not be needed.

Of course, this could be overcome if an HTTP Accelerator is used that takes
the whole request before passing it to a local httpd, but I don't know of
any proxies that work this way (AFAIK they all pass the packets as they
arrive).