Re: IceBreak as an alternative to Apache?

[Niels Liisberg <liisberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Thorbjørn;

There is nothing wrong with apache!! it is a fantastic web-server... The problem is the CGI part and fact that apache is well suited for running thread where you in RPG normally would like to have a process - namely a IBMI job.  So typical you have to (re) design you app to relocate resources whenever you have a new request from the "next" session. Which again makes i.e. commitment control almost impossible - or at least a nightmare..  

Some have implemented persistence in CGI ( now we are only talking ILE/RPG/COBLE - and down that road) however, that just adds to the CGI overhead.

So the 10-factor holds in IceBreak. It is, however,  more in the manner - 10 times less resources is needed due to the added unnecessary stuff applied to your code and due to the number of layers. 
  





Best regards


Niels Liisberg

Chief Technology Officer


System & Method
Håndværkersvinget 8, DK-2970 Hørsholm
Phone: +45 70 20 30 10 
Fax: +45 70 20 30 11
Direct: +45 45 166 135
Mobile: +45 31 158 861 
E-mail: nli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.system-method.com and www.Icebreak.org





Den 30/12/2010 kl. 22.02 skrev Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen:

> 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?
>
> -- 
>   Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen  "...plus... Tubular Bells!"
>
> -- 
> This is the Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries (WEB400) mailing list
> To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400
> or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/web400.