Hey Stas,
PH>Some good graphs, including thttpd:
PH>http://www.zeuscat.com/andrew/work/aprbench/
SB>It shows that threaded mpm's throughput is worse than preforked, which
SB>sounds dubious unless things were broken (blocking mutexes). Hopefully
SB>someone can run a benchmark on more updated versi
Perrin Harkins wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
Where did you see the benchmarks showing that Apache 2.0 has a better
performance than 1.3?
All over!
Thanks Perrin.
[...]
Some good graphs, including thttpd:
http://www.zeuscat.com/andrew/work/aprbench/
It shows that threaded mpm's throughput i
Stas Bekman wrote:
Where did you see the benchmarks showing that Apache 2.0 has a better
performance than 1.3?
All over!
Joshua's numbers from this list:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-modperl&m=103238123915307&w=2
Some good graphs, including thttpd:
http://www.zeuscat.com/andrew/work/
Nick Tonkin wrote:
Hmm, I think it all depends on the application. It's true that hardware
costs have declined since The Days, but you still don't have unlimited
RAM.
True, there is an upper limit on per-machine scalability with a
multi-process server and thttpd would do better there if the net
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Eric Frazier wrote:
> > On that note, how about just using Apache2 for the proxy front end, and
> > mod_perl /apache 1.x for the back end? I have wanted to try to avoid the
> > thttpd stuff for images and from what I have heard about apache2 it can
> >
Hi,
You know I was all ready on my dev box to start messing around with apache2,
when we had a major evil thing happen on our fancy server. So my dev box had
to become our server. And because I have not had any personal experence with
apache 2, I converted everthing back to 1.x on the dev box.
Perrin Harkins wrote:
Eric Frazier wrote:
On that note, how about just using Apache2 for the proxy front end, and
mod_perl /apache 1.x for the back end? I have wanted to try to avoid the
thttpd stuff for images and from what I have heard about apache2 it can
handle static pages a lot faster than
Eric Frazier wrote:
On that note, how about just using Apache2 for the proxy front end, and
mod_perl /apache 1.x for the back end? I have wanted to try to avoid the
thttpd stuff for images and from what I have heard about apache2 it can
handle static pages a lot faster than the 1.x did.
You real
Hi,
On that note, how about just using Apache2 for the proxy front end, and
mod_perl /apache 1.x for the back end? I have wanted to try to avoid the
thttpd stuff for images and from what I have heard about apache2 it can
handle static pages a lot faster than the 1.x did.
Thanks,
Eric
At 04:0
Ged Haywood wrote:
modperl 2 with apache 2 thread is stable enought for start one big
project of ecommerce?
If it were my decision I'd say not yet, use mod_perl 1.27 with Apache 1.3.27.
It depends on your needs. The majority of the features is there and should
work just fine. The stability
Hi there,
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Udlei Nattis wrote:
> hi, sorry my english ;)
It's ok. :)
> modperl 2 with apache 2 thread is stable enought for start one big
> project of ecommerce?
If it were my decision I'd say not yet, use mod_perl 1.27 with Apache 1.3.27.
73,
Ged.
hi, sorry my english ;)
modperl 2 with apache 2 thread is stable enought for start one big
project of ecommerce?
[]s
nattis
12 matches
Mail list logo
