Re: highscalability.com report
Dave Hodgkinson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.apache.mod-perl |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 4 Apr 2012, at 19:41, Fred Moyer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:37 AM, demerphq <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 4 April 2012 09:31, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> When was the last time you built perl with no threading support? It's >>> certainly a 5%-15% win. >> >> Not certainly. We did that and saw almost no difference. > > I've done two perlbench sets of comparisons with threaded/non-threaded > across a couple different versions of perl. I don't have the results > posted on the web anymore, but non-threaded was up to 20% faster for > some operations. > > As far as real world differences go, I don't think you are likely to > see differences with mod_perl in production environments with threaded > vs non-threaded. That 20% increase probably only affects 1% of your > application. I would say the app layer performance is the least of your worries. Front-end caching, CDNs and caching in the intermediate layers will win you much, much more than fretting about +/- 20% in the speed of the code. And if you have a scalable architecture, and I'm assuming youporn is, you can always go sideways very easily.