I've done some metrics on the differences and they are generally in the range of a couple 100 extra instructions in the code path of a request, so the actual impact is sub 1%. In fact depending on the vagaries of the memory management strategy of the platform and OS you're on it could easily be faster to run as a DSO. Besides, why sacrifice the flexibility? I usually run a front-end proxy on all my mod_perl stuff, which can give you a good performance boost. With DSO you can run the same binaries and just tweak the config file.
On Friday 31 October 2003 12:07 pm, J�rg Walter wrote: > On Friday 31 October 2003 17:57, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: > > On Friday 31 October 2003 12:50, J�rg Walter wrote: > > > > I'm wondering if there are any others here using Debian Sid, and if > > > > so, is using authentication on the top of the apache-perl package. > > > > > > Use mod_perl as a DSO, that works fine. Package name slipped my mind > > > ATM. > > > > Yup, I know, but since mod_perl is so extensively used by AxKit, it > > would be nice to use apache-perl with it statically linked, and > > besides, if there is a bug in the package, it should be fixed... :-) > > Well... I think there is no real benefit of using mod_perl statically > linked. I even remember reading somewhere that PerlFreshRestart only works > decent if you are using a DSO. And, for that matter, AuthHandlers and > everything work fine. Dynamic linking isn't really that much of a > performance bottleneck, especially since you have perl code which should > make much more difference than the added function call overhead. > > CU > J�rg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Tod Harter Giant Electronic Brain http://www.giantelectronicbrain.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
