On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Philip Mak wrote:
> In the recent Hello World 2000 benchmark posted by Joshua Chamas, mod_perl
> handler was shown to be even faster than static HTML (at least for running
> hello world), and twice as fast as using Apache::Registry to run a perl
> script.
I honestly think something is up there. The code that mod_perl goes
through before executing the actual perl script is a lot slower than the
code the static HTML (http_core) handler goes through.
FWIW, In AxKit 1.4_80 on axkit.org (beta, has bugs), I've implemented
something I call a mod_perl fast handler, which skips most of the stuff in
mod_perl, allowing you to go: "AddHandler axkit .xml" in your httpd.conf,
and it works much the same way as SetHandler/PerlHandler does, except
faster. Obviously though you lose the benefit of being able to write
handlers for the different handler phases with this method. And it
requires XS code.
> Does this mean that if there's a heavily used script on my system that
> needs to be VERY fast, then it may be worth making it into a mod_perl
> handler? What are the caveats of using mod_perl handlers instead of normal
> scripts?
Using handlers is better. Hands down. :-)
Personally I just find handlers more logical than CGI scripts. They have a
known entry point, which I think makes life a hell of a lot easier in
structuring complex code. Rather than the entry point being "the top of
your script".
There's a beginners article on take23 about writing your first handler
module.
--
<Matt/>
/|| ** Founder and CTO ** ** http://axkit.com/ **
//|| ** AxKit.com Ltd ** ** XML Application Serving **
// || ** http://axkit.org ** ** XSLT, XPathScript, XSP **
// \\| // ** mod_perl news and resources: http://take23.org **
\\//
//\\
// \\
