On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 11:28:12PM +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Now 20 odd percent speed up is not worth the risk of putting a server in the
> kernel if you ask me. ( But then if you can afford Zeus, you can afford the
> extra power, and not the extra risk. Just FYI, Zues costs about a thousand
> British Pounds, yes it's a lot, but well worth it )
>
> Of course, it's 4.5 times ( 350% greater ) faster than Apache, and there it
> might be worth looking at, especially if you serve a lot of static content,
> and not much dynamic content. As someone on the Linux Mindcraft challenge
> team said, "And we all know how heavily the world is moving to static
> content".
I read a web site the other day, but can't remember where. Oh,
well. It had an interesting alternative to speeding up an otherwise
dynamic web server:
Install squid as a transparent proxy of the site itself, in "front"
of the server. Squid hands off cached copies of rendered pages
that haven't expired yet, leaving the existing web
server/{perl,php,whatever} as a back-end page assembly or "rendering"
engine.
It would be an interesting performance comparison, I think.
It also avoids having to manually re-arrange the parts of your
page that can be static.
--
Andrew
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
