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

[Les Mikesell]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Horrocks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "mod_perl list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_perl withscripts
that contain un-shared memory


>
>  Right, but this also points out how difficult it is to get mod_perl
>  tuning just right.  My opinion is that the MRU design adapts more
>  dynamically to the load.

How would this compare to apache's process management when
using the front/back end approach?

>  I'd agree that the size of one Speedy backend + one httpd would be the
>  same or even greater than the size of one mod_perl/httpd when no memory
>  is shared.  But because the speedycgi httpds are small (no perl in them)
>  and the number of SpeedyCGI perl interpreters is small, the total memory
>  required is significantly smaller for the same load.

Likewise, it would be helpful if you would always make the comparison
to the dual httpd setup that is often used for busy sites.   I think it must
really boil down to the efficiency of your IPC vs. access to the full
apache environment.

      Les Mikesell
         [EMAIL PROTECTED]