er.
Dale
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Orion-Interest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 3:51 AM
Subject: SV: Performance for static files
Look at the benchmark page...
Against Apache and IIS its got no problems at all beating them into the
bushe
: Christof Baumgaertner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Orion-Interest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 3:00 AM
Subject: Re: Performance for static files
Looks to me like if Orionserver tries to do HTTP/1.1 Keep-Alive without
setting
the Content-length accordingly. Can anybody confirm?
Dale
At 08:47 08.09.00 , you wrote:
just did a test and it seemed to make a big difference. In IE advanced
options I had Use HTTP1.1 turned off. I turned it back on and it made a big
difference. As a matter of fact, I don't see the problem anymore as of yet.
(after clearing cache).
Dale
then
Dale Bronk wrote:
That may be true as I was including the time to server the file all the way
to the point of the "little e" stopped spinning. Have you had the following
problems with framesets...
In Apache/IIS with JRun 2.3.3 the frameset and each individual jsp/html
files popup
We have a webbased client/server application which in addition to its
dynamic elements has to serve a huge amount of small files (HTML, GIF,
JS). I understand that Orionserver's performance for J2EE based
applications is pretty good. How about serving static files from the
file system? Can it
Emne: Performance for static files
We have a webbased client/server application which in addition to its
dynamic elements has to serve a huge amount of small files (HTML, GIF,
JS). I understand that Orionserver's performance for J2EE based
applications is pretty good. How about serving static files
. september 2000 08:40
Til: Orion-Interest
Emne: Performance for static files
We have a webbased client/server application which in addition to its
dynamic elements has to serve a huge amount of small files (HTML, GIF,
JS). I understand that Orionserver's performance for J2EE based
applications
. september 2000 08:40
Til: Orion-Interest
Emne: Performance for static files
We have a webbased client/server application which in addition to its
dynamic elements has to serve a huge amount of small files (HTML, GIF,
JS). I understand that Orionserver's performance for J2EE based
applications
in-process with Apache
(instead of running
as CGI with Orion).
My 2c,
JP
-Original Message-
From: Dale Bronk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 9:15 AM
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: Re: Performance for static files
Right now until I am proved otherwise, I disagree
2000 08:40
Til: Orion-Interest
Emne: Performance for static files
We have a webbased client/server application which in addition to its
dynamic elements has to serve a huge amount of small files (HTML, GIF,
JS). I understand that Orionserver's performance for J2EE based
applications
If we were serving up static pages, then we wouldn't need Orion... :)
Frank Eggink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
09/07/00 03:43 PM
Please respond to Orion-Interest
To:Orion-Interest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: SV: Performance for static files
Maybe a still too
D]
To: "Orion-Interest" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: Performance for static files
Hi,
Two things. One..your correct about the browser keeps on going. I have the
same "problem" on my site. Its strange, but the little E keeps spinni
, then the next.
- Original Message -
From: "Juan Pablo Lorandi" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Orion-Interest" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 12:36 PM
Subject: RE: Performance for static files
Perhaps a lil' off track, I'd like to point out that:
you may
To: Orion-Interest
Subject: Re: Performance for static files
That may be true as I was including the time to server the file all the way
to the point of the "little e" stopped spinning. Have you had the following
problems with framesets...
In Apache/IIS with JRun 2.3.3 the framese
14 matches
Mail list logo
