Re: Performance Gain?
Nigel Metheringham (Nigel.Metheringham@theplanet.net)
Fri, 13 Sep 1996 16:41:06 +0100
Message-Id: <m0v1aMc-000714C@dingo.theplanet.co.uk>
To: Mark Brown <mbrown@openmarket.com>
From: Nigel Metheringham <Nigel.Metheringham@theplanet.net>
Subject: Re: Performance Gain?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:42:15 EDT."
<199609131342.JAA15351@breckenridge.openmarket.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 16:41:06 +0100
mbrown@OpenMarket.com said:
} The short answer to the fork/exec question is: fork/exec is slow but
} for a small binary not *that* slow. What generally kills CGI
} performance is large binaries and programs that require elaborate
} initialization: reading config files, opening database connections,
} etc.
I can certainly confirm that for a largish perl application - where a
fork/exec cycle is mostly dominated by loading perl and compiling the
script - fastcgi *feels* much faster - ie latency is lower. The
actual CPU/invocation is also around 10% of the same script done as a
straight CGI.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel.Metheringham@theplanet.net - Unix Applications Engineer ]
[ *Views expressed here are personal and not supported by PLAnet* ]
[ PLAnet Online : The White House Tel : +44 113 251 6012 ]
[ Melbourne Street, Leeds LS2 7PS UK. Fax : +44 113 2345656 ]