Roger Espel Llima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jeremy Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm the person whose words you're quoting here,
not Jeremy's.
> > A backend server can realistically handle multiple frontend requests, since
> > the frontend server must stick around until the data has been delivered
> > to the client (at least that's my understanding of the lingering-close
> > issue that was recently discussed at length here).
>
> I won't enter the {Fast,Speedy}-CGI debates, having never played
> with these, but the picture you're painting about delivering data to
> the clients is just a little bit too bleak.
It's a "hypothetical", and I obviously exaggerated the numbers to show
the advantage of a front/back end architecture for "comparative benchmarks"
like these. As you well know, the relevant issue is the percentage of time
spent generating the content relative to the entire time spent servicing
the request. If you don't like seconds, rescale it to your favorite
time window.
> With a frontend/backend mod_perl setup, the frontend server sticks
> around for a second or two as part of the lingering_close routine,
> but it doesn't have to wait for the client to finish reading all the
> data. Fortunately enough, spoonfeeding data to slow clients is
> handled by the OS kernel.
Right- relative to the time it takes the backend to actually
create and deliver the content to the frontend, a second or
two can be an eternity.
Best.
--
Joe Schaefer
