RE: FRCA-Fast Response Cache Accelerator any benefitwhilerunning CGI apps?

The benchmarks that I saw the data for, showed that source members served up
(to the browser via the web server) to 10 times faster than html on the IFS.
This was done on V4R? at the time (probably V4R4/R5). 
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Haas, Matt
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:18 AM
To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: RE: [WEB400] FRCA-Fast Response Cache Accelerator any
benefitwhilerunning CGI apps?

<snip>
I don't know anything about FRCA, but traditionally serving HTML pages out
of the IFS is what people do; serving them out of a source file member is
perfectly acceptable and is actually faster than IFS-based HTML pages. If
you convert your IFS to *TYPE2 then the performance gap between source
members and IFS is narrowed.
<snip>

Since when is this faster? It's been a long time since I did any
benchmarking (it would have been on a 50S running V4R1 or V4R2) but the root
file system was several times faster and put a lot less load on the box than
serving out of a member. I know that (at least at one time) the
documentation said that the root file system (which I guess is what you mean
by IFS -- the IFS actually encompasses all of the file systems: libraries,
root, QNTC, etc..) was the fastest place for static stuff (HTML, graphics,
etc..) since OS/400 can stream the bytes out and doesn't have any extra
database overhead.

Matt

_______________________________________________
This is the Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries (WEB400) mailing list
To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400
or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/web400.