Gunther Birznieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But instead he crafted an experiment to show that in this particular case
> (and some applications do satisfy this case) SpeedyCGI has a particular
> benefit.
And what do I have to do to repeat it? Unlearn everything in Stas'
guide?
>
> This is why people use different tools for different jobs -- because
> architecturally they are designed for different things. SpeedyCGI is
> designed in a different way from mod_perl. What I believe Sam is saying is
> that there is a particular real-world scenario where SpeedyCGI likely has
> better performance benefits to mod_perl.
Sure, and that's why some people use it. But to say
"Speedycgi scales better than mod_perl with scripts that contain un-shared memory"
is to me quite similar to saying
"SUV's are better than cars since they're safer to drive drunk in."
>
> Discouraging the posting of experimental information like this is where the
> FUD will lie. This isn't an advertisement in ComputerWorld by Microsoft or
> Oracle, it's a posting on a mailing list. Open for discussion.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I didn't see any mention of the
apparatus used in his experiment. I only saw what you posted,
and your post had only anecdotal remarks of results without
detailing any config info.
I'm all for free and open discussions because they can
point to interesting new ideas. However, some attempt at
full disclosure (comments on the config used are as important
important than anecdotal remarks about the results) is
necessary so objective opinions can be formed.
--
Joe Schaefer
