[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Orr) wrote:
> And I'm confused by what you mean. I'm talking about having the
> webserver broker all requests, and then through mod_rewrite, AddHandler
> for *.py, or somehow, having it invoke Webware only for dynamic files.
> This is what Tux is designed to do, although
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 01:04:24PM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Orr) wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 10:49:42AM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
> > > I think this can be better than simply telling the web server to serve
> > > certain kinds of files, because it allows you to do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Orr) wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 10:49:42AM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
> > I think this can be better than simply telling the web server to serve
> > certain kinds of files, because it allows you to do complicated
> > URL->filename mappings, and to implement your own se
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 10:49:42AM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
> I think this can be better than simply telling the web server to serve
> certain kinds of files, because it allows you to do complicated
> URL->filename mappings, and to implement your own security for file
> access. These situations
Tavis Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Serving static files
> =
> On high load sites it makes no sense to serve static files
> from the AppServer. I feel we need to make it easier to
> serve only dynamic pages from the AppServer and leave
> static files from the webserver (Apache,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Orr) wrote:
> I don't think he meant the speed of the adapter per se, but rather the
> overall impact of using Tux instead of Apache. Tux is supposed to be
> faster and resource-lighter for static files, which could make a
> difference on high-traffic sites.
Sorry, I didn
Hi,
I agree with Ian's comments. In all the playing I've done
with optimizing the core socket dispatching the performance
gains are almost always neglible once you get into most
real-world scenarios. As Chuck has pointed out to me
several times, Webware is already fast enough for its
intend
I posted to webware-discuss
instead of webware-devel, oops.
- Forwarded message from Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Orr)
Subject: [Webware-discuss] Re: [Webware-devel] Tux adaptor
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 20:21:03 -0700
There's not a
Jimmie Houchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am wanting to use Tux for the front webserver for a website I'm
> developing.
>
> It would be very sweet if there were a Tux Webware adaptor. I would be
> interested in what kind of performance such would have.
I don't want to seem like too much of
Oops, forgot a url. :)
http://www.redhat.com/products/software/webservers/tux/
Jimmie Houchin
Jimmie Houchin wrote:
> I am wanting to use Tux for the front webserver for a website I'm
> developing.
>
> It would be very sweet if there were a Tux Webware adaptor. I would be
> interested in wha
I am wanting to use Tux for the front webserver for a website I'm
developing.
It would be very sweet if there were a Tux Webware adaptor. I would be
interested in what kind of performance such would have.
Has anyone looked into such?
For those who don't know.
Tux is a multi-threaded, event d
11 matches
Mail list logo
