LiangTyan Fui a �crit :
>
> On 11/12/00 7:28 PM, Pierre Sahores wrote:
>
> > andu a �crit :
> >>
> >>> Yes, I've been using the AppleEvent handle on Mac for CGI some time ago. But
> >>> the major concern here is the complexity of the CGI. Suppose I have a chunk
> >>> of code that would takes a long time to execute (10 seconds?), the second
> >>> query from the AppleEvent will have to wait.
> >
> > You mc code need optimisation. I would never serve something on the web in
> > using
> > a piece of code unable to reply in more than 50/60 ticks.
>
> Even if I can cut each query down to 30 ticks, I'll have problem when I have
> 5 to 10 hits per seconds - and yes, it happens.
Congratulations if your server runs with such an hits average. For 10
hits/second * 3600 * 24 = 864000 hits/day, both macos 8/9 and winnt are going to
be out of the range and you will need to use an unix server.
If the hits average is < 150000/day, i just know that MacOS 8.1 and up + WebStar
3.02 (reply timeout set to 900 seconds) + HC/PopToFront or MC will run fine,
even if some requests are going time-to-time to a slowest service (like
Lasso/FileMaker) running on the same G3 266 Mhz/292 Mo server.
If you want to get the same average from a winNT monoprocessor server without
crashing it day after day, don't try to use any web application server solution
(Websphere, Oracle, Metacard, etc..) nor any cgi config and just run little
ASP/SQLServer solutions.
> On an on going development project, I just don't have luxury to think
> "optimised" over "functional".
I agree and when i have to write 280000 chars of mc code in a month, i'm happy
to know that the stuff will be web served by a Linux box ;-)
>
> >>> In most case this is ok if I plan carefully, but when I start deploying
> >>> complex solution this way, I have to always ensure:
> >>> - each query has to be short
> >
> > Use only "POST" procedures and boost the Ram over more than 256 Mo.
>
> Can you elaborate how "POST" is better then "GET"?
1.- Because each post request need to be recognised by the web application or
cgi script by its name/value key, the server will not answer anything to an
unrecognised key (server more secure againt attacks where it's always easiest to
crashe a server in sending it a non autorised get request).
2.- Because the length of a post request is only limited by the ram avalaible on
the server.
>
> >>> - push complex processing to other application, if I use MetaCard (the CGI
> >>> in this case), the CGI will still hog.
> >>> - slice long processing with "send xxx to yyy in 1 second with zzzz", making
> >>> codes become more complex.
> >
> > Hum ! Code optimisations needed...
>
> Hmmm... sometime you just cannot optimise more ;-)
>
> >>> Even with all the above, I still get unreasonable performance on extremely
> >>> busy situation (10 to 20 cgi hit a second?)
> >>>
> >>> Well I must say this has something to do with AppleEvent and the way CGI has
> >>> been implemented on the Mac. The same limitation are effecting ALL CGIs on
> >>> the Mac as well, not only MetaCard.
> >
> > I agree too if is it to say that Unixes both cgi's and web applications
> > servers solutions are the best ways to serve complexes web solutions in using
> > php, omnisstudio, webobjects or, best, metacard (i'm still testing a mc/mysql
> > solution on Linux and it seems it could become a good way to serve the
> > web...).
>
> How do you access mySQL from MC? Sorry if this has been discussed in this
> list.
>
As i'm just working on this for yet, i'm testing two ways before chosing the
more secure and stable to use :
- direct SQL queries to MySQL sended by MC scripts trough IP sockets.
- undirect queries to MySQL (MC to PHP to MySQL trough IP sockets).
I will answer more about that when i will be sure about those test results ;-)
> > I'm not sure to agree if someone think WinNT/Apache or WinNT/IIS4 (XiTami not
> > tested for yet) are better handling cgi or web apps solutions than MacOS 8.6 +
> > WebStar 3.02 + AppleEvents (boosted by the free and very fine PopToFront XCMD
> > from Maxum Corp) + HC or MC...
>
> I noticed MetaCard runs fine in the background (Mac). I used to keep
> HyperCard running as front most application in order to build a reasonable
> responsive CGI, but with MetaCard, putting WebSTAR as front most seems
> faster.
You right ! The PopToFront XCMD, so usefull to speed HC, is not realy needed to
run MC web solutions.
>
> > Just see one of my last mails about the answers delays for the same mc e-com
> > solution tested on macos, linux and winnt. I have installed such a G3 solution
> > on a professional backbone witch run without any app bugs or system crashes
> > since 01/98.
>
> But again you were referring to a relatively simple CGI request, and
> probably low traffic web site.
Just go back, some lines before. For small and medium needs, MacOS 8/9 stay a
very usable alternative to WinTel bad and expensive stucks ;-)
>
> > The problem with the macos way (and winnt too) is the system memory handling.
> > To get good results on mac, you must avoid the use of "GET" requests, have
> > more than 256 Mo of ram installed and optimise the hc/mc code even more and
> > more... Sure that today, it's probably better to use unixes, even in waiting
> > for MacOS X, in all cases...
>
> Couldn't agreed more.
>
> > On the other hand, WinNT seems unable to handle cleanly others web serving
> > solutions than asp's/sql server (the separated memory processes system is only
> > reserved to SQL Server, most of the jobs are handled in the Win Apps partaged
> > memory process, just like MacOS 8/9 does) and, clearly, it's not working as
> > fine as a clean configured MacOS 8 solution can.
> >
> >>
> >> Most inefficient, I agree. Not sure I understand your comment bellow but
> >> MCHTTPd *is*
> >> the way to go (in theory) in terms of efficiency in this case. Unfortunately
> >> I didn't have
> >> enough motivation to develop it beyond the demo state.
> >
> > I did'nt test it enough and could'nt handle "POST" requests in using it.
>
> That could be easily enhanced I think. But I cannot understand why must POST
> better then GET? Is this a browser issue or server? I use both - and frankly
> I was avoiding POST if necessary - GET is easier to debug where everything
> is clear on the browser URL.
>
Too clear perhaps, even for some no realy friendly crackers too :-(
> Regards,
> LiangTyan Fui
>
> >> But talking about web servers I recently experimented with Xitami and I
> >> highly
> >> recommend it as an alternative to Apache at least when it comes to
> >> configuration.
> >> Related to this discussion, it has no problem calling MC cgi scripts.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> While the cmc.exe and Unix based MetaCard have advantage to handle queries
> >>> simultaneously, but overhead on loading the CGI and initialising the
> >>> solution might be high. And concept of implementing these CGI is very
> >>> different on the Mac CGI (and MCHttpd too).
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> LiangTyan Fui
> >>>
> >>
> >> Regards, Andu
> >> _______________________
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> >> Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
> >> Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
> >
Regards, Pierre Sahores
chef de projet cyberlibrairie
SNPIN - CNDP. 91, rue Gabriel-Peri
92120 Montrouge. T�l.: 01.64.45.05.33
Penser la part du r�ve et
produire l'avantage comp�titif.
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
