Re: IceBreak as an alternative to Apache?

[Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen <ravn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Den 30/12/10 21.38, Bent Rønne skrev:
> Hi Keven
>
> It is true that is IceBreak probably at least 10 times as fast as Appache and the reason is very simple. IceBreak uses the direct way to read the request from the browser and write the response back again. Opposite if you use appache, your programs use the stdin&  stdout to communicate with the browser. Stdin&  stdout are files that must be handled and here you have the problem with performance and Appache. Therefore it will not help if IceBreak could do the same as Appache. However, it would probably not require a big job to rewrite the programs to IceBreak.
Am I correct in assuming you are talking about CGI-programs here, and 
not as such Apache (except it is the default choice of web server on the i)?

If so, the typical Apache solution to the overhead of CGI is to embed 
the language environment in the Apache binary instead of invoking it 
every time.  At least that is what was done with Perl (and PHP too if I 
recall correctly).

Does the factor 10 still hold when comparing with an Apache server with 
embedded interpreters?