Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Benchmark for fastcgi
pps <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.fastcgi.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
What's wrong with the list? It doesn't have Reply-To headers. All
reaplies I wrote went to personal mailboxes.
Per Andersson wrote:
> Do any of you have any data on benchmarking of fastcgi. What I am
primerily interested in is sending 5k html data embedded in C printf
statements in a C fcgi application. From what I have read fastcgi could
even be faster than direct seb server API. Is this true? From the
benchmark below it does not seem true.
>
>
> As you can see php is actually faster! What I wonder from these
results is if how the fastcgi app was done, was it a perl interpreted
page or was it a C application?
>
> What do you think of these results?
I also tried fastcgi & c++. I did simple tests, check it here:
http://block111.servehttp.com/fcgidx/fcgid.html. In general my results
showed that php page that doesn't do anything dynamically (e.g. doesn't
have <?php ... ?>)is about 50% slower vs fcgi&c++ that generates this
page dynamically (not just by cout << "<html> ...." << endl; but does
some work)
What I really don't like about fcgi is that it spawns alot of processes
(and what I hate is that I cannot disable [notice] messages in apache
logs, and it's full of messages that new process is started/stopped ;)
Is there a workaround, anybody?)
What I really would like from fastcgi is to be able to code fastcgi apps
the way that there would be 1 process instance for each application that
handles apache requests in multiple threads:
while(FCGI_Accept()>=0){
Request_info request = get_request_data();
Handle_Request_In_a_new_thread(request);
}
//and we get here when process manager thinks that it's time to stop or
failed to connect to the server...
___________________________________
fastcgi-developers mailing list
http://fastcgi.com/fastcgi-developers/