On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Robert Spier wrote: > > However please send patches if you find things missing. It's performing > > extremely well for me. > > And for me too. > > I'm testing it (in production). It's definitely performing faster and > lighter than pperl.
All sounds good. > Now if only I could convince someone else (*cough*) that the qmail > tcpserver architecture, high performance, and perl don't play along. Sounds to me like you are in a position to provide some benchmarking data to support the argument. > There's a lot to be said for minimizing startup cost. I assume that you mean per connection, not startup cost overall. The forking server increases startup cost of the run script (but drastically reduces per connection costs). I imagine there's a little more file access which can be pushed up front if you want to further boost throughput. But you then might need to consider HUP handling to re-read config on the fly. --- Charlie
