Hi there,
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Trevor Phillips wrote:
Whether it's i686 or i386 - both mod_perl and FastCGI are using the same
compile of perl - so what difference should there be?
Must have got my wires crossed somewhere - I thought you must be using
different Perls.
73,
Ged.
Trevor Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
On my main dev box, ab gives an average of 8.8secs for the mod_perl
run, and 7.2secs for the FastCGI run. The internal timer and printed
output reflects these results too.
How does the cgi/command-line version stack up? AFAICT your test isn't
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Trevor Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
On my main dev box, ab gives an average of 8.8secs for the mod_perl
run, and 7.2secs for the FastCGI run. The internal timer and printed
output reflects these results too.
How does the cgi/command-line version stack up?
Stas Bekman wrote:
Joe Schaefer wrote:
I doubt that this makes any difference. I think what makes the
difference is
the fact that the mod_perl handler is setup via .htaccess. Have you
tried setting it in httpd.conf? Otherwise it's parsed on each request,
no surprises that it's slower.
Eh? How
On Tuesday 17 June 2003 18:18, Ged Haywood wrote:
Do you know for sure that the Per was compiled for i686? Maybe it was
compiled for i386, so it would run on just about anything but it can't
use a lot of the faster features found in later processors.
Whether it's i686 or i386 - both
On Wednesday 18 June 2003 11:30, Trevor Phillips wrote:
On my main dev box, ab gives an average of 8.8secs for the mod_perl run,
and 7.2secs for the FastCGI run. The internal timer and printed output
reflects these results too.
Oops! The internal timer wasn't accurate: Swap lines 35 36 of
