On 2/18/07, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > James Gardner wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > >>>> Maybe you could try with the latest (0.5.12) version? > > > > 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.
It definitely does not cache any proxied requests ever, unless you're using the memcached module, but that's very explicit. > > 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. I'm curious as to why anyone would want to use FastCGI in the first place if proxying is available? Implementation wise, there's very little reason why FastCGI would be markedly faster or slower than the HTTP protocol. -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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
