Hi Joshua,
Thanks for the explanations and suggestions. I just realized that you are the author of Apache::ASP.
My thanks to you for this wonderful piece of work.
I am very new to framework based template system. I chose to go with variable interpolation
Thanks for the explanations and suggestions. I just realized that you are the author of Apache::ASP.
My thanks to you for this wonderful piece of work.
I am very new to framework based template system. I chose to go with variable interpolation
initally but slowly disocovered that things started to get out of control when hundreds
of
thousands of pages needed to be generated on the fly.
I still need to factor out the features of Apache::ASP that we don't really need. But it's nice to
I still need to factor out the features of Apache::ASP that we don't really need. But it's nice to
know that we always have access to certain features should I
find they provide a cleaner solution.
I work for the 2nd largest portal in Taiwan and am in charge
of front-end stuff like HTML output,
content/layout organization.
Migration to a new system for such a large site will definitely
require
careful study of the new system and
extensive test of its overall performance and scalability.
We
already have a large building block
on session management which are based on
Apache::Session.
That's why I was keen on finding out how Apache::ASP handles
session and its interoperability with
Apache::Session. It would be nice for Apache::Session to
be natively built into Apache::ASP, but
I guess I can settle with your suggested workaround for
now.
Cheers,
Jindo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Chamas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 12:59 AM
> To: Jindo Soul
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Session handling
>
>
> > Jindo Soul wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wonder how SessionManager handles sessions validity. Does
> every invocation of ASP script will always cause SessionManager
> to check which session
> > has timed out? If so, wouldn't this be expensive as far as
> performance is concerned? Please enlighten me on this. Thanks
> for you input.
> >
>
> Yes the session manager does do this extra check, even to update
> a timestamp for the session each request. And this is expensive.
> Even if Apache::Session used the same storage mechanism, it would
> be faster because of the lack of session management. At a most
> basic level, one day you would need to purge old Apache::Session
> records to reduce the data set size, and will likely have to
> code up your own solution for this.
>
> A simple hello world script with my dev 2.23 Apache::ASP
> has these performance characteristics with & without $Session
> turned on ( quick 15 second benchmark ):
>
> Test Name Test File Hits/sec # of
> Hits Time(sec) secs/Hit Bytes/Hit
> --------- --------- ---------
> --------- --------- --------- ---------
> Apache::ASP hello.asp 317.7 4770
> 15.01 0.003147 242
> Apache::ASP $Session On hello.asp 134.4 2017
> 15.01 0.007441 307
>
> The important thing to note is the difference of .0043 secs/hit.
> If your scripts take .02 seconds to run, then this would be
> a difference between 41 hits/sec & 50 hits/sec your scripts
> could deliver, not accounting for the overhead for using
> Apache::Session.
>
> A bigger test script, h2000 highlights this difference:
>
> Test Name Test File Hits/sec # of
> Hits Time(sec) secs/Hit Bytes/Hit
> --------- --------- ---------
> --------- --------- --------- ---------
> Apache::ASP 2000 h2000.asp 198.7 2983
> 15.01 0.005032 28998
> Apache::ASP 2000 $Session On h2000.asp 107.0 1606
> 15.01 0.009344 29063
>
> In evaluating whether you would like to use Apache::ASP's
> native $Session, and if concerned about performance, I
> would recommend deciding on what performance you need,
> and seeing whether using ASP's session gets in the way
> of this by doing some benchmarking. If your scripts
> are significantly complex, I will bet that your performance
> issues will be in their complexity, and not in the
> session management overhead.
>
> Finally, I would recommend using Apache::Session if you
> want to set up a web cluster. One could mount Apache::ASP
> StateDir on a network file system, but this is not how I
> would do it, unless I had a great network file server cluster
> to mount to. One day we will have native Apache::ASP sessions
> that go to the database, but if that is what you really need NOW,
> then I'd use Apache::Session.
>
> -- Josh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Chamas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 12:59 AM
> To: Jindo Soul
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Session handling
>
>
> > Jindo Soul wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wonder how SessionManager handles sessions validity. Does
> every invocation of ASP script will always cause SessionManager
> to check which session
> > has timed out? If so, wouldn't this be expensive as far as
> performance is concerned? Please enlighten me on this. Thanks
> for you input.
> >
>
> Yes the session manager does do this extra check, even to update
> a timestamp for the session each request. And this is expensive.
> Even if Apache::Session used the same storage mechanism, it would
> be faster because of the lack of session management. At a most
> basic level, one day you would need to purge old Apache::Session
> records to reduce the data set size, and will likely have to
> code up your own solution for this.
>
> A simple hello world script with my dev 2.23 Apache::ASP
> has these performance characteristics with & without $Session
> turned on ( quick 15 second benchmark ):
>
> Test Name Test File Hits/sec # of
> Hits Time(sec) secs/Hit Bytes/Hit
> --------- --------- ---------
> --------- --------- --------- ---------
> Apache::ASP hello.asp 317.7 4770
> 15.01 0.003147 242
> Apache::ASP $Session On hello.asp 134.4 2017
> 15.01 0.007441 307
>
> The important thing to note is the difference of .0043 secs/hit.
> If your scripts take .02 seconds to run, then this would be
> a difference between 41 hits/sec & 50 hits/sec your scripts
> could deliver, not accounting for the overhead for using
> Apache::Session.
>
> A bigger test script, h2000 highlights this difference:
>
> Test Name Test File Hits/sec # of
> Hits Time(sec) secs/Hit Bytes/Hit
> --------- --------- ---------
> --------- --------- --------- ---------
> Apache::ASP 2000 h2000.asp 198.7 2983
> 15.01 0.005032 28998
> Apache::ASP 2000 $Session On h2000.asp 107.0 1606
> 15.01 0.009344 29063
>
> In evaluating whether you would like to use Apache::ASP's
> native $Session, and if concerned about performance, I
> would recommend deciding on what performance you need,
> and seeing whether using ASP's session gets in the way
> of this by doing some benchmarking. If your scripts
> are significantly complex, I will bet that your performance
> issues will be in their complexity, and not in the
> session management overhead.
>
> Finally, I would recommend using Apache::Session if you
> want to set up a web cluster. One could mount Apache::ASP
> StateDir on a network file system, but this is not how I
> would do it, unless I had a great network file server cluster
> to mount to. One day we will have native Apache::ASP sessions
> that go to the database, but if that is what you really need NOW,
> then I'd use Apache::Session.
>
> -- Josh
