Re: IceBreak as an alternative to Apache? -- WEB400

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Den 30/12/10 21.38, Bent Rønne skrev:

Hi Keven

It is true that is IceBreak probably at least 10 times as fast as Appache and the reason is very simple. IceBreak uses the direct way to read the request from the browser and write the response back again. Opposite if you use appache, your programs use the stdin& stdout to communicate with the browser. Stdin& stdout are files that must be handled and here you have the problem with performance and Appache. Therefore it will not help if IceBreak could do the same as Appache. However, it would probably not require a big job to rewrite the programs to IceBreak.

Am I correct in assuming you are talking about CGI-programs here, and not as such Apache (except it is the default choice of web server on the i)?

If so, the typical Apache solution to the overhead of CGI is to embed the language environment in the Apache binary instead of invoking it every time. At least that is what was done with Perl (and PHP too if I recall correctly).

Does the factor 10 still hold when comparing with an Apache server with embedded interpreters?

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.