Are you by chance running this on MacOS X? We had some trouble recently with one of our MacOS servers. We ended up upgrading to Jaguar and most of the problems went away. We still had problems with trying to run a server on port 80 without being root. I think one of the networking upgrades on 10.0 basically was incompatible with Squeak in some weird way.
I have to say that for me they were going the same rate (i.e. slow), but that could simply be a function of where you are on the network. The only really disturbing thing was that Mozilla was reloading the icons every time. The icons are substantially the same on any page, so you shouldn't have much slowdown besides the first time that you are loading them. Instead, it seemed extremely slow. Also, the icons all have width and height tags that should allow the page to render faster, not making it seem nearly as slow. I'm not sure if OS X has any support for things like ipchains and iptables. On our linux servers, we run the server on port 8080 and use iptables to map port 80 to port 8080. I can't tell the difference in speed between the two. Peace and Luck! Je77 On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 04:47:43PM -0400, Adam C. Engst wrote: > Hey folks, > > This is driving me nuts. I've been running something called 4D Portal > that hasn't been working well, so I was going to replace it with > Swiki, which I was already running on the same machine at port 8080. > For giggles, I downloaded the latest Swiki and installed that at port > 80 in place of 4D Portal. The first few pages came up quickly, but > after that, I'm seeing huge delays in connecting to the Swiki server > and returning the page, so much so that many pages time out entirely. > I've barely done anything other than configure the admin password > here, so it's not like there's anything much going on here. The old > Swiki was still running on port 8080, so I tried that, and everything > came up quickly. > > I figured it might be a quirk of Swiki 1.3 rather than the previous > 1.2 that I had been running, so I switched the old one to port 80 and > suddenly it suffered the same sluggishness. Some things would work, > but most failed or timed out. > > I have both of them running now, and if anyone would like to take a > look, I'd be curious if you can figure out what might be the > performance problem with the one running on port 80. I do need to use > that port since the URL has been widely published already without a > port number. I have noticed that the slow port 80 version will > sometimes act right for a few pages before starting to flake out > again. > > <http://iphoto.tidbits.com/> is likely to be slow or fail entirely > <http://iphoto.tidbits.com:8080/> is likely to be fast > > Any hints or tips welcome! Thanks! > > cheers... -Adam > > -- > Adam C. Engst, TidBITS Publisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > XNS: =Adam Engst= <http://www.tidbits.com/>
