On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthew Toseland<toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > AFAICS no. I'm not saying we should go with a static only host, I'm saying we > shouldn't > make dynamic that which doesn't need to be, on grounds of CPU cost (which > determines > responsiveness in practice). Modern systems (even apache 2 to a reasonable > degree) > can serve static content ridiculously fast, that's not true of dynamic > content.
Oh come on now, this argument is just as implausible. Are you seriously claiming that there will be a consequential difference in speed (in terms of user experience) between a statically served page, and a page that is dynamically generated in response to a simple test of a HTTP header? Research I've seen is that response time only has a measurable effect if its over 100ms, and only a perceptible slowness if its over 700ms. I can't believe that, unless we're running our web server on an Atari 800XL, that there will be any significant difference in response time just because the page is dynamically generated. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, Uprizer Labs Email: ian at uprizer.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 Fax: +1 512 276 6674
