[Seaside] Apache frontend for Squeak, mod_scgi ?
Jimmie Houchin
jhouchin at texoma.net
Fri Sep 26 16:23:27 CEST 2003
Avi Bryant wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
[snip]
> All of these protocols do the same thing:
>
> - apache accepts the request
> - apache connects through a local socket to the application server (squeak)
> - apache sends the request, in some format, over this socket
> - the application produces an HTTP response and sends it back
> - apache forwards this response back to the user
>
> The only difference is what format the request is in when it is sent over
> the local socket.
[snip]
> I'm not kidding. That's pretty much the difference.
Okay.
> Now, the last format (that mod_proxy uses) is straight HTTP, which means
> that Comanche will understand it. The others need a different kind of
> server which understands the mod_lisp format or the mod_scgi format
> instead of the HTTP format. There's no particular reason to believe that
> these servers will be any faster than Comanche, although the particular
> implementations may be. I don't think request parsing is much of a
> bottleneck anyway, it seems a funny thing to optimize.
>
> *All* of these will be slower than connecting to Comanche directly. The
> point of putting Squeak behind apache is not to somehow leverage apache's
> performance, but to integrate better with other apache features - like,
> for example, serving static content.
This is the part I don't understand. I am not expert on any of this.
All I know is that:
Apache helloworld25k.html = 800 rps
Comanche helloworld25k.html = 90 rps
Apache, mod_python helloworld25k.py = 390 rps
(script opening the 25k file and serving it to Apache)
Medusa (python web server)helloworld25k.html = 25 rps
This is all from memory and not necessarily totally accurate.
I don't intend for Apache to serve any static files. I'll use Tux for
static files and images. My only desire for Apache is to improve dynamic
requests. If Squeak/Comanche could equal or better Apache/mod_python in
performance on dynamic pages. I would leave Apache alone.
If I am misunderstanding my experience or doing something wrong I don't
know. I am open too that. I don't think Apache mod_python are doing any
caching. The script opens, reads and closes the file. Python is
persistent, long-lived, but the script should still execute the open,
read, close every time. Just a modest attempt at a simple dynamic response.
I will attempt to try mod_proxy this weekend and put Apache2, mod_proxy,
Squeak to a test.
I just don't see any reason for Apache, mod_python, etc. to outperform
Squeak. To my thinking I believe Squeak should outperform most Python
solutions.
> If the dynamic parts of your site don't perform adequately using Comanche,
> you have a problem that introducing apache cannot possibly fix (except as
> a front end for some kind of load balancing system, but that could just as
> easily be done with, say, the Pen load balancer).
Thanks for the education. I'm really rooting for Squeak. It is truly
what I would prefer, but it has to earn its keep. :)
Jimmie
More information about the Seaside
mailing list