James Gardner wrote: > > Agreed, there's no point unless FastCGI is significantly faster which > would be unexpected. > > Since the tests show it isn't faster I'm going to carry on using my > existing HTTP setup. We can put the FastCGI rumour to bed. >
As I'm the one that said it was faster earlier in the thread, I think I should be the one to put the rumour to bed :-)) As mentioned in the earlier post, I was playing around with some preliminary configurations on my laptop and it was faster using flup/fastcgi (via ab, not wall clock). I have been waiting for another server to be setup side by side at my hosting company before I did any 'real' testing, as any testing done outside the host network just saturated the b/w I had available from my office (nothing faster than 128k ISDN where I live/work) w/o getting the server warmed up. I probably should have just kept my email shut until doing some real testing - stay tuned. Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
