At 12:35 PM 5/28/2001 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
>Chuck Esterbrook <ChuckEsterbrook@...> wrote:
> > You should point out to them that the app server requires substantially
> > less load on the server than CGI does.
>Not to be a party-pooper or anything, but this isn't that true in this
>context. For the span of a single transaction Webware doesn't use as
>much resources as a CGI with similar functionality. But on a shared
>host it really matters how much resources you use over time. Webware
>is still using resources when no one is using is transacting with it,
>CGI does not.
When Webware is not being used, it would presumably get swapped out to disk
by the O.S. not given much priority. As it gets used, it would be swapped
back in, which seems no worse than launching a CGI.
Consider that for *every request* CGI will incur this additional overhead:
* Launch a process
* Load the interpreter (python)
* Load the standard modules (os, sys, etc.)
* Load commonly used modules (MySQLdb, DateTime, etc.)
* Load the script (MyPage.py)
* Other initialization (e.g., opening a database connection)
* Shutdown the process
How many requests would it take for Webware to show a worthwhile gain over
CGI? I'm guessing not too many.
>A typical site constructed with CGI -- where there are a few portions
>that are dynamic, and more portions that are static -- will probably
>use less resources over time. This is what most shared hosts are
Not sure what you are implying about the "more portions are static". Even
if the CGI spews forth HTML pieces that are fairly static, all the overhead
I list above still takes place. The only static pieces that avoid that are
cases should be cached by the browser.
>targetting. Also, a run-away process takes a lot of resources, and
>CGI is better protected from this.
>BTW, I've had a hard time finding that rc script (that maybe Geoff
>wrote? Or someone else...) It would be nice if it was part of
>Webware, even if it was in a non-committal experimental directory, or
>available as a seperate download somewhere.
It's in CVS as WebKit/webkit. Sheesh, isn't that obvious?
I think it's missing some contribs which I have on my TO DO list. Although
I *am* using it on 2 projects and it seems to work just fine.
It's been on my list to give it a better name and possibly put it somewhere
else. Maybe WebKit/Aux/webkit_init