Hi Ian, >> I've rerun the tests with 0.5.12 and the difference is exactly the same. >> FastCGI is 5 times *slower* than simple HTTP! > > Someone mentioned caching -- are you sure that the HTTP server is > getting all the requests? If Nginx is caching some responses and not > passing them through, it will of course be much faster.
Yes, I'm sure there is no caching when using HTTP because I can benchmark the paste server directly and it is about 1ms faster per request than using Nginx to proxy to it. >> Perhaps you are proxying to multiple FastCGI backends which is of course >> going to be faster than a single HTTP backend but you can also proxy to >> multiple HTTP backends so that isn't comparing like with like. > > It shouldn't dramatically improve performance to use multiple FastCGI > backends. Unless you have a SMP machine or something, which could > change performance in all kinds of ways. Fair point, but it depends a bit on what is going on that is making the FastCGI performance so poor. James --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
