Julian Wiesener writes: > could be done (possible better) as well with nginx or apache > or any other webserver that supports CGI execution
ArtemGr <artemciy@...> writes: > You would loose some benefits of Tntnet when using Apache. > And "could be done with nginx" is a bad argument, > unless you *don't* want people to use the Tntnet as it is, a web server. Here is a cost of using Apache reverse proxy (instead of using Tntnet directly). Apache <-> Tntnet (httpd-2.4.6, logs off): ab -n 999 -c 9 http://carramba.frople1.bizlink.ru/ Requests per second: 242.37 [#/sec] (mean) Tntnet: ab -n 999 -c 9 http://carramba.frople1.bizlink.ru:8080/ Requests per second: 7170.29 [#/sec] (mean) (Cherokee's reverse proxy works much better with Tntnet but is buggy). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Tntnet-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tntnet-general
