leam wrote:
Not a question of "can you make it more performant?" as that's easy to answer. I'm looking at "Is there a web metric that makes it more viable for a small start up to spend time maintaining non-mainstream software collections than using standard tools like Apache, Linux, and traditional servers"?
Do you even need these improvements? If your current setup works out, why bother optimizing it and potentially hitting a bunch of problems? Improving performance is always appreciated, but finding metrics, evaluating them, then tweaking them, then trying different constellations. I don't know, but that effort and risk for a theoretical performance increase?
Some long time ago I read in one of the more populer computer magazines (Micht have been Computerworld) a performance analysis of IIS on Windows (obviously), Apache on Windows, and Apache on Linux. Their results showed that Apache on Windows performs best. Their recommendation was to use the WAMPP stack for web development. I don't know how accurate their test was and how the situation is today, but it shows that there are more factors to performance than just the web server application. Sure, some light weight web server apps can surely perform better, but there are likely things that these apps can't do. And other characteristics such as reliability are almost more important than kick ass performance.
David _______________________________________________ New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online http://www.nyphpcon.com Show Your Participation in New York PHP http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
