Oh well, having 6 hours of sleep in two days (watching Czech ice hockey team in Salt Lake City ;-) I am really not prepared to hear something like that. Your reply suggest that I try to say something bad about Rugby intentionally, while just opposite is true. You skipped rest of my request, in which I ask someone else to confirm my results.
In fact - I do care, as if I wouldn't, I would never try to download Rugby. The problem lays somewhere in between - if I want to know something about Rugby, I have to study source code, or just ask. Source code is being changed, so it is not all that easy to keep track of all the details. So what did I actually do when testing? I simply started 4 rebol consoles, all from one and the same directory, using the same config file! I ran one example using old Rugby, one example using new one, with results I posted. I got results I got, so what? My testing procedure seemed to be logical to me. Of course, after reading your response I gave it another try. Thre results dropped to nearly one minute, so I actually looked into proxy stuff. My user.r now holds one line setting system/schemes/default/proxy/bypass block, containing two of our company servers, as well as "127.0.0.1". But it also contains my local IP address. So I just added new IP address of machine I was performing tests on to the above mentioned bypass list, and the performance was back to half a second. I don't know why "127.0.0.1" is not ok anymore .... But - old Rugby was OK, while new versions require me to add each machine I run test on to the bypass block. I think that there is difference in Rugby 4.3 httpr or tunnel code and the one from current or XPi version. So, actually, where is the truth? Is it my bad config? Or your change in the code? How should I know? So, if you prefer only positive reports on ml which is here for developers to have some feedback, more than actual, maybe even incorrect test results, I can stop testing at all ... I don't know what exactly "sigh" means in your other response, but one conclusion - W2K code is OK, W9x is not. It was confirmed by Cyphre and Pat. Holger replied that it is maybe due Rugby's architecture. I can understand him, as he has not probably studied Rugby nor does he have enough free time to do so. He suggested to look at tcpdump data, but I have not found any free time to do such deeper investigation yet. Now I am not even sure I should care. I know where the problem lies - simply don't use W9x with Rugby and communication intensive stuff. W2K is OK. That's acceptable knowledge to me. You can put it in your doc, or you can forget reported data. OK, now I feel better ;-) -pekr- Maarten Koopmans wrote: > On my PII 300Mhz, 64 Meg of memory: 100 reqs/ 1.9 sec with the latest release. > > On Linux 2.4.x > > DO you have any firewalls, alarms etc. Rugby uses http and if all your > requests are 'analyzed' that explains a lot of the slowdown. It must be > something like that, 'cause my WinMe 200Mhz K6 has something like 30 req/sec > > It clearly is a configuration problem on *your* side, so I wish you'd stop > saying that Rugby has bad performance. It is simply not true. > > --Maarten > -- > To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes. -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
