Alexei Batyr' <[email protected]> writes: >> I'm not sure I agree with your observations about FCGI. I rarely >> hear about it, these days. Somehow, I doubt that www.yahoo.com uses >> FCGI. > > Of course, such giants as Yahoo and Google use their own HTTP server > software. However according to Netcraft survey ... almost 6% of all > web sites in the world use nginx that does not contain own PHP
What percentage of those sites are using PHP? What percentage are using FCGI? What percentage of them are doing anything dynamic at all, as opposed to just serving static pages? My first guess would be that the 6% figure for nginx is probably more or less totally irrelevant to FCGI usage - unless you have actual information to the contrary, which you did not include in your previous message. > Right for the case where Sqwebmail is the only web application on > the given server. But I'm talking about web server with _already > loaded_ PHP interpreter, in the form of FCGI server or apache > module. Even given a PHP interpreter already loaded, I'd be fairly surprised if a PHP wrapper *improved* on the performance of a small binary. I think I would want to see a peer-reproduced controlled study before I would believe something like that. -- Nathan Eady Galion Public Library ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: Show off your parallel programming skills. Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
