On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Michael Peters <mpet...@plusthree.com> wrote: > I'd like to see the performance of Starman vs > mod_perl for normal applications (that don't need to do anything fancy with > Apache). If it's anywhere close to mod_perl than I suspect lots of people > would use it instead since it's much easier to setup and also much easier to > package with your app since it's just a CPAN module. Would be nice to > through FastCGI into that benchmark too.
I tweeted @miyagawa to see if he had this benchmark, and if memory serves mod_perl2 was about 75% the speed of Starman in a hello world benchmark with an unknown mod_perl2 configuration. I believe the Starman cpan page has benchmarks vs FastCGI. My takeaway from those benchmarks was that all of the webservers tested were essentially equally fast since they were within 25-50% of the performance of each other with a simple benchmark. I'm not sold on packaging the webserver with the application though. I've been moving towards using the webserver (in my case httpd/mod_perl2) that is installed with the platform. One less thing for me to worry about, in my case the Centos packagers take care of that problem for me.
