On Feb 18, 6:09 pm, Robert Leftwich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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).
Benchmarking on a laptop can be misleading since the CPU scaling makes it impossible to get consistent results. -- Matt Good --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
