It appears that on 1/2/00 10:01 PM, andu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>with it, it seems like threading would almost be a requirement. Obviously
>>no one's going to try to beat Apache's benchmarks with a MetaCard stack,
>
>My arrogance pushes me to ask, why not? I strongly believe that by 2.4 the
>sockets stuff should be polished enough to at least match *some* of
>Apache's benchmarks at least on Linux.
I knew I'd get a bite with that comment :-) In more detail, what I meant
was, I see three basic possibilities off the top of my head:
Straight web serving of static pages. In this category, I think what I
said holds: on equivalent hardware, a MetaCard solution would not be able
to keep up with C-coded, optimized-for-speed solutions like Apache or
even WebStar. I eagerly await the benchmark that proves me wrong.
Web serving with dynamic pages involving scripted customization, and/or
light database reqirements. Here I agree with your statement, although I
have no benchmark to back it up. I wouldn't be surprised if a customized
MetaCard web server slung pages right alongside an Apache server
interacting with Perl scripts. This is where I think a MetaCard server
could really make a difference.
Web serving as a front end to large databases. Anybody's guess. I've
never hooked MetaCard up to (for instance) Oracle. Are there published
documents on how to talk to Oracle, etc., via IP? Is it possible? This,
too, could be very interesting.
gc
This is the MetaCard mailing list.
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
