Re: [htmltmpl] speeding up an h-t website on a windoze box

[Puneet K. <pk...@ei...>]

On Apr 17, 2004, at 2:53 PM, Sam Tregar wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Puneet Kishor wrote:
>
>> Mod_perl is out because the server might be running IIS (and even if 
>> it
>> isn't, I am sure my script will have to be re-hacked).
>>
>> I was hoping for IPC-SharedCache, but that doesn't seem possible on 
>> Win.
>
> Have you tried the file_cache option?  All it needs is Storable, so it
> should work on Windows.  On Linux it's as fast as the shared_cache,
> although I don't know much about how fast the Windows file-system is.

Thanks for the advice. I will try it.

>
>> Other than simply increasing the hardware capability, are there any
>> insights on what I can do?
>
> Figure out what's actually taking the most time.  You can do that by
> using a profiler like Devel::DProf.  Since you're using DBI you can
> also use DBI's built-in profiler to examine the performance of your
> database queries.
>
> Most likely HTML::Template isn't take a significant amount of time in
> your application.  Usually network delays and database calls take much
> longer than HTML::Template.
>
>

Oh, I don't think H-T is necessarily the one taking time (wasn't my 
intent to seem to blame H-T). I think it is just the way it is with all 
the other modules, and the script being cgi and all.

I figured that with all the modules I am loading, and my own script, 
that is probably well over 10k, maybe even 20k lines of code being 
chewed through every user click. Which is why I tried CGI-Simple, 
because CGI is really, really heavy.

Since I can't use mod_perl (though, as Cees suggested, FastCGI might, 
might be an option -- SpeedyCGI is not; it doesn't run on Windows), 
seems like the only thing I could possibly cache was H-T. Hence the 
question about IPC-SharedCache.

I'll try shared_cache and try to measure the difference.

Thanks.