While on this topic...
has anybody done any benchmarks on PWS and/or Comanche performance, compared to Apache?
My personal, intuitive point, is:
While Squeak's performance on Socket serving and File accessing may be slower (is it true), using squeak for modules (a.k.a. cgi-bins) may be faster, compared to perl, php3, asp performance (this 3 languages are interpreted, not compiled to native. And are the 3 languages most used for web development) Can somebody tell me if I'm right? or at least if what I said looks right?
I would like to do some performance tests in the near future, but I want to know if sombody has already done it.
Performance Bye! Richie++
-- A390 1BBA 2C58 D679 5A71 - 86F9 404F 4B53 3944 C2D0 Investigacion y Desarrollo - CoreLabs - Core SDI http://www.core-sdi.com
-- A390 1BBA 2C58 D679 5A71 - 86F9 404F 4B53 3944 C2D0 Investigacion y Desarrollo - CoreLabs - Core SDI http://www.core-sdi.com
--- For a personal reply use gera@core-sdi.com
On 28 Feb 2000, Gerardo Richarte wrote:
has anybody done any benchmarks on PWS and/or Comanche
performance, compared to Apache?
Not that I know - but you should post those questions to the PWS list, too.
My personal, intuitive point, is: While Squeak's performance on Socket serving and File accessing
may be slower (is it true), using squeak for modules (a.k.a. cgi-bins) may be faster, compared to perl, php3, asp performance (this 3 languages are interpreted, not compiled to native. And are the 3 languages most used for web development)
Can somebody tell me if I'm right? or at least if what I said
looks right?
Sure - it should be as fast as Java servlets. But FastCGI diminishes the loading overhead for Perl based CGIs, too. And for text processing, Perl is still faster than Squeak (IMO, no benchmarks).
-Bert-
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org