Re: CGI bug scripts
Julian Gilbey wrote: Is it my imagination, or is bugreport.cgi *really* slow? I think that we should really investigate the possibility of using mod_perl. It's using CGI.pm, which is *big* and takes time to load. I've written scripts which I use under mod_perl and the time difference is astonishing. You can also just not use CGI.pm, which is horrendously bloated for most tasks. -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CGI bug scripts
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 04:56:29PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: Julian Gilbey wrote: Is it my imagination, or is bugreport.cgi *really* slow? I think that we should really investigate the possibility of using mod_perl. It's using CGI.pm, which is *big* and takes time to load. I've written scripts which I use under mod_perl and the time difference is astonishing. You can also just not use CGI.pm, which is horrendously bloated for most tasks. or modify it to run under speedycgi, which gives most of the benefits of mod_perl (persistent perl scripts, persistent database connections, compile-once rather than on every request, etc) without the hassles of mod_perl. unlike mod_perl, most CGI scripts work under speedyCGI with little or no modification...the main thing you have to remember is that the script is now persistent, so you have to be careful about use of global variables and even more careful about correctly initialising your variables - they will retain their values from one execution to the next. for many CGI scripts, the only change you have to make is change the #! /usr/bin/perl line to #! /usr/bin/speedy. mod_perl still has it's uses - speedy and mod_perl perform similar but far from identical tasks. for some jobs, mod_perl is better while for other jobs, speedy is better. craig -- craig sanders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CGI bug scripts
Anthony, Is it my imagination, or is bugreport.cgi *really* slow? I think that we should really investigate the possibility of using mod_perl. It's using CGI.pm, which is *big* and takes time to load. I've written scripts which I use under mod_perl and the time difference is astonishing. It would probably really help if we want to regenerate static pages as well, and also reduce the load on master when people do things like: wget -X Bugs/db/si,Bugs/db/ix -r -l 1 -nv -nH \ 'http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]' to download all of their bug reports. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Re: CGI bug scripts
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 01:53:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Anthony,
Is it my imagination, or is bugreport.cgi *really* slow? I think that
we should really investigate the possibility of using mod_perl. It's
using CGI.pm, which is *big* and takes time to load. I've written
scripts which I use under mod_perl and the time difference is
astonishing. It would probably really help if we want to regenerate
[...]
I just looked at the load on master (=bugs.debian.org). It's
averaging around 8 or 9, and running top, I saw times when there were
about 10 copies of {bug,pkg}report.cgi running simultaneously. I
think that if the BTS is moving to dynamically generated pages only,
mod_perl is going to be a necessity.
I don't have much time right now, but I'd be happy to help when I do
(in October, most likely).
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Re: CGI bug scripts
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:43:29PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 01:53:46PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
Anthony,
Is it my imagination, or is bugreport.cgi *really* slow? I think that
we should really investigate the possibility of using mod_perl. It's
using CGI.pm, which is *big* and takes time to load. I've written
scripts which I use under mod_perl and the time difference is
astonishing. It would probably really help if we want to regenerate
[...]
I just looked at the load on master (=bugs.debian.org). It's
averaging around 8 or 9, and running top, I saw times when there were
about 10 copies of {bug,pkg}report.cgi running simultaneously. I
think that if the BTS is moving to dynamically generated pages only,
mod_perl is going to be a necessity.
I don't have much time right now, but I'd be happy to help when I do
(in October, most likely).
Julian
It's easy to set up. I'll do it after the scripts have stabilized.
--
James (Jay) Treacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
