On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:29:54PM -0600, Neil Schemenauer wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:32:06PM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote: > > Communication over named sockets would also be nice. I haven't really > > used those before; maybe that's only a small change. With named sockets > > you don't need to manage a registry of all the servers and ports on a > > box, which would be helpful. > > I don't see how named sockets are any better. You would have to > have a registry of paths instead of ports.
I've found (in terms of raw performance), that UNIX domain sockets are twice as fast as TCP/IP sockets on the local machine. You also get some security for free, as you can use the filesystem permissions to restrict who can access them. Also, you could pass file descriptors over them, so potentially (for the CGI version), you could pass the file descriptor that Apache gives for stdin and stdout directly to the SCGI server, instead of copying the data. (I don't know if mod_scgi could do this, as it depends on the internal Apache API.) Adding UNIX domain sockets has been on the todo list for my CGI-SCGI program, but I haven't had the time to get around to it :-( -- |>|\/|< /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ |David M. Cooke http://arbutus.physics.mcmaster.ca/dmc/ |[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Quixote-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixote-users
