--On Wednesday, July 12, 2000 4:14 PM -0700 Pramod Sokke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So is it true that Netscape has a better performance than Apache 1.3?
Don't know. Haven't seen any benchmark data.
However, there is a need to define one's terms as well. Probably, the
Netscape (now Iplanet) server will interact more efficiently with other
Netscape/Iplanet servers -- many vendors add non-standard, proprietary
functionality for times when one of their products talks to another of
their products. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and whether
Netscape does that or not, I don't know.
If the Netscape/Iplanet server support POSIX threads, it will scale better
than Apache on hosts such as Solaris (are Linux threads POSIX?). However,
that issue goes away in Apache 2.0 -- which is still alpha.
But, scalibility in a large site depends an awful lot on all kinds of
things over and above the WEB server. If you're a busy site, you should be
spreading the load across multiple machines anyway. And even on big
solaris servers, you need to up the max tcp connection request value.
> Here, we are trying to move over from Netscape to Apache not so much coz
> of performance issues with the web server, but more to add
> mod_perl/fastcgi and cool stuff like that.
This is where you've hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. The
Apache API is a VERY well known API, and there are many, many tools,
commercial and open source, that enhance and extend the server and enable
you to whatever it is you want to do fairly easily. If it's more
configurable, it's a better tool. You can increase bandwidth by adding
additional servers. There is a direct dollar cost associated with more
hardware, but does not ease of development, flexibility and extensibility
more than compensate.
My point is that Netscape is a good server and Apache is a good server and
each of them has their plusses and their minuses, and it's important to
consider the server and your application as a whole and not focus on just
one piece -- especially since we don't have a definition of what the
original poster (or his WEB administrator) meant by "better performance").
-- Rob
>
> -Pramod
>
> At 12:18 PM 7/12/00 +0200, Luis Henrique Cassis Fagundes wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Recently I started to have problems in developing my CGIs because in my
>> new job most of the servers run Netscape instead of Apache. The
>> administrator told me that the reason is that Netscape has a better
>> performance than Apache 1.3. I'm now developing a module that caches in
>> disk dynamic generated pages, and an interface to delete parts of this
>> cache when something is modified.
>> Does anyone know if something like this has already been developed?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> []s
>> Luis
>>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/\_\_\_\_\ /\_\ /\_\_\_\_\_\
/\/_/_/_/_/ /\/_/ \/_/_/_/_/_/ QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT,
/\/_/__\/_/ __ /\/_/ /\/_/ PROFUNDUM VIDITUR
/\/_/_/_/_/ /\_\ /\/_/ /\/_/
/\/_/ \/_/ /\/_/_/\/_/ /\/_/ (Whatever is said in Latin
\/_/ \/_/ \/_/_/_/_/ \/_/ appears profound)
Rob Tanner
McMinnville, Oregon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
