Simon Ward wrote: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:49:03PM +0100, Stefan de Konink wrote: >> It is extremely tight to the webserver :) It is a native plugin >> implementation directly incorporated with the webserver that pools >> database connections. (And uses it string management.) > > Could it be written as an Apache module, or, even more portably, a > FastCGI application? Both methods would allow you to pool database > connections, but I don’t know what other advantages the tight > integration with Cherokee has.
Cherokee is currently the *fastest* webserver out there, with respect to serving of static files, the close integration just reduces overhead and allows easy packaging as LiveCD. And I'm trying to get a tileserver on top of it, with also a 'native' handler_tile. http://www.cherokee-project.com/benchmarks.html So obviously I don't see any reason why I should port an application to an inferior platform (apache) or add extra middleware layers (fastcgi) if that is exactly what I wanted to avoid from the beginning. I'm happy more people interest in this (how are the mod_osm guys that were writing a C++ API?), over a Ruby implementation :) But I don't see why people want to make a HP/HA application portable... I cannot see a reason ;) Just run this thing on another http-port the overhead of Cherokee is less than 8MB! Stefan _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
