TechRepublic ran a short review of Xitami - mostly fluff but they had some stats The article is at http://www.techrepublic.com/article.jhtml?id=r00220011127ern01.htm&fromtm=e102-1&_requestid=77991 (I can send it to the list if you don't want to login)
But basically it had a much better performance the Apache/IIS - and most notably it was very strong on windows. Antoher good point is that it had a very low intial connection time. Has anyone tried it? I'd like to give it a shot -Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoffrey Talvola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dan Wilder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [Webware-discuss] Gentlemen, start your engine! > On Monday November 26, 2001 10:08 pm, Tavis Rudd wrote: > > On Monday 26 November 2001 16:50, Geoffrey Talvola wrote: > > > On Monday November 26, 2001 07:18 pm, Dan Wilder wrote: > > > > Failing that, will webware run under some lighter-weight > > > > http server, preferably one with a Windows port? There must > > > > be at least one such. > > > > > > Xitami seems like a very easy-to-setup lightweight Windows web > > > server. I played with it for a while before switching to Apache, > > > and it seemed pretty nice. But I don't think I ever tried running > > > Webware with it. If someone tries it, let us know if it works. > > > http://xitami.com > > > > > > Apache works well on WinNT/2000 but it does require editing messy > > > config files by hand. That's a big turn-off for many Windows > > > people. > > > > It would fairly straight forward to include a simple bare-bones > > Python coded webserver with WebKit. There's a functioning HTTPServer > > in the experimental WebKit code that I've been working on. It's > > based on the new dispatching code I wrote so it would take a bit of > > work to port it to the existing ThreadedAppServer. But at 210 lines, > > it shouldn't be terribly difficult. Anyone interested in doing that? > > > > Of course it should come with a big notice saying that it's for > > development and testing only. It's been lightly tested with HTTP GET > > requests and seems to perform just as well as Apache with some simple > > Cheetah servlets (180 req/sec for 600 req with a concurency of 100). > > > > Well, that was the case with the HTTP server that used to be included with > Webware. It was marked as experimental, but it was fast and seemed to work > OK with simple requests. Unfortuately people kept on reporting problems that > happened as they got a little further into using it under varying conditions, > and nobody had the time to fix it up. > > Unless someone's willing to commit to real testing and fixing bugs, I'd > say let's not include it in Webware and commit the same mistake. > > - Geoff > > _______________________________________________ > Webware-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
