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  ]