Re: figures/resources on content via apache SSI vs. database-driven(perl DBI)
grant stevens wrote: > I think all I'm asking about is a performance comparison for a site > comprised of 95% static content between Apache SSI and a mod_perl > db/template system. Well, mod_include (SSI) is the best choice if it meets your needs. A modern OS will cache your include files in RAM and the whole thing will be very fast. Yes, some perl templating systems cache content in memory and might manage to squeeze out some pages slightly faster, but you will pay for that with hugely increased memory consumption which reduces the number of requests you can handle in parallel. In the end, throughput from a server running mod_include will probably be significantly higher. Apache::SSI is about the same speed as mod_include (on apache 1.x) but uses much more memory. If you are just serving static files, stick with mod_include. The real reason people use templating systems beyond SSI is that they require more power and flexibility. At the point where you start needing to do things with dynamic content, you should probably kiss SSI goodbye. By the way, SSI (or something very close to it) is pretty much the only way to go if you have thousands of unique static files. A system like Mason or Template Toolkit that caches the files in memory would quickly blow up in that situation, and you would end up needing to work around it by keeping most of the pages on disk and loading them at request time, just like SSI. - Perrin
RE: figures/resources on content via apache SSI vs. database-driven (perl DBI)
Template Toolkit is what I am familiar with and while I don't have any numbers, I would think the caching that it provides for you would win out over processing the page every request. Once the page has been created, it shouldn't need any more processing until it is changed. Look at Apache::Template and Template Mason provides caching also. Ben -Original Message- From: grant stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 5:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: figures/resources on content via apache SSI vs. database-driven (perl DBI) all- Perhaps I am making a mistaken assumption, but just in case I wanted to support my assumptions with some real data. Can anyone point me to some script resources, or maybe just the results of their own experience on the performance of SSIs in apache vs. converting a site to a database-driven scenario. My assumption is, of course, that if the requirements are simple, go with the simplest solution. Basically, I broke the site up into includes executed via SSI. My question would be, is there any drastic improvement (CPU, memory, download time, server processes, whatever) that would be gained by switching to some kind of mod_perl templating system? These are all static pages. I think all I'm asking about is a performance comparison for a site comprised of 95% static content between Apache SSI and a mod_perl db/template system. thanks- grant stevens http://l-eet.com PS. RTFM answers are fine as long as the particular FM is specified. :)
figures/resources on content via apache SSI vs. database-driven (perl DBI)
all- Perhaps I am making a mistaken assumption, but just in case I wanted to support my assumptions with some real data. Can anyone point me to some script resources, or maybe just the results of their own experience on the performance of SSIs in apache vs. converting a site to a database-driven scenario. My assumption is, of course, that if the requirements are simple, go with the simplest solution. Basically, I broke the site up into includes executed via SSI. My question would be, is there any drastic improvement (CPU, memory, download time, server processes, whatever) that would be gained by switching to some kind of mod_perl templating system? These are all static pages. I think all I'm asking about is a performance comparison for a site comprised of 95% static content between Apache SSI and a mod_perl db/template system. thanks- grant stevens http://l-eet.com PS. RTFM answers are fine as long as the particular FM is specified. :)
