On 2/18/07, Cliff Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 17:50 +0000, James Gardner wrote: > > > Unless I've set something up very wrong, that means that there is about > > a 1ms overhead using Nginx as a proxy compared to doing the requests > > directly but that using HTTP is about 5 times faster than using FastCGI. > > Should I be using a different version of Nginx? > > 0.4.13 is pretty old, but I'm still surprised by that amount of > overhead. Maybe you could try with the latest (0.5.12) version?
Well by default nginx is going to cache the proxied server's response before sending it to the client, that could explain the 1msec or so. I'm sure you'd have different results over a slower link where it makes more sense to do that kind of caching. > > > > I would say though that Nginx is very easy to setup and I do like it, > > even if the FastCGI setup doesn't seem faster than the HTTP setup with > > Pylons. > > Most of the benchmarks I've seen (which is only a couple) have shown > FastCGI on Nginx to be slightly faster than proxying, although by a very > small amount. However, proxying is a lot easier to set up than FastCGI. I'm sure there's things that can be done to paste.httpserver to make it come closer to FastCGI in performance. -bob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
