> On Fri, 24 Dec 1999, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > And, one has to add, Roxen outperforms Apache in most areas (no, I have no
> > numbers - just personal experience)
>
> No, it doesnt. (Personal experience running it on several production
> servers) Roxen suffers performance penalties from being interpreted
> bytecode. Its currently in need of some major optimizations to get it back
> up to apache performance levels.
HTTPLoop (the feature I was talking about) does exactly that. It's a
wildly optimized full-C backend with extremely aggressive caching. The
numbers I cited in the referred message were obtained using it.
The Roxen vs. Apache comparision is to be taken with caution, as both have
strong and weak points when compared to each other. Roxen benefits from
its single-process approach (no thundering herd, even when this was a
problem, but can suffer from the select()/poll() slowness that was
discussed some time ago for the exactly the same reason). Roxen can cache
better, but Apache is in C (only the processing part is interpreted in
Roxen on Linux, remember it uses sendfile())... I could go on forever and
end being blatlantly offtopic (not that I'm faring much better now).
-- Kinkie primary e-mail: kinkie@kame.usr.dsi.unimi.it[random fortune] Might as well be frank, monsieur. It would take a miracle to get you out of Casablanca and the Germans have outlawed miracles. -- Casablanca
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/