>>>>> "PW" == Peter Wood <[email protected]> writes:
PW> Thanks for all of the responses yesterday. I did some testing today PW> using IO::Socket::INET vs LWP::Simple, and it was a wash: PW> Averages: (based on a test fetch to www.cnn.com) PW> IO AVG: 0.250 seconds/request PW> LWP AVG: 0.254 seconds/request as i said, that is almost all wait on the server time so of course they will be the same. and the server time is 1/4 second which is WAY more then the clock time for either method. try measuring the cpu usage of both with either benchmark or something else. PW> I think Uri is correct that the delay from the server is a much bigger PW> factor and that the overhead from either method is negligible. duh! :) PW> I think I'll stick with LWP for the time being for its dependability, PW> familiarity, and ease of use. and we have a winnah!!!! uri -- Uri Guttman ------ [email protected] -------- http://www.sysarch.com -- ----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------ --------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com --------- _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
