[Seaside] Re: static image files
David T. Lewis
lewis at mail.msen.com
Wed Mar 1 01:59:32 UTC 2006
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:02:51AM +0000, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
> David Shaffer wrote:
> > Jimmie Houchin wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> Let me see if I understand correctly here.
> >> Squeak's file I/O blocks, so any activity which requires file access
> >> impacts the performance.
> > Yes. Of course the real impact depends a lot on application usage
> > patterns (is it the same image file being served many times to the same
> > user? a bunch of different users? a bunch a different image files?).
> > It also depends on how well browser caching is working or if you're
> > using a front-end cache (like squid) how well it is working.
> Yes, I understand that the application makes a tremendous difference.
> Myself, I prefer to let Apache, Lighttpd, etc. server truly static
> content. So I guess I was fishing for confirmation that local use of the
> filesystem has its costs.
> I guess this would also be born in use of Magma for DB.
> I guess the more in memory inside the image the better.
> >> What about the network I/O? Is it non-blocking?
> > Yes, network I/O is non-blocking (the Squeak UNIX VM has a polling-based
> > custom asynchronous I/O model).
This actually works equally well for file I/O, since the aio functions
in the Unix VM work for any socket or file descriptor. AioPlugin on
Squeak Map will show you how it works. There is also an AsyncFile
class in Squeak that presumably does similar things.
More information about the Seaside