[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Server-side. Performance Re: Netscape Support for XSL
On Fri, 19 May 2000, Paul Tchistopolskii wrote: > Well .. That means - still no need in storing xml document in internal cache. > Caching strategy could be pretty trivial : [snip] Well it is fairly trivial. I didn't say otherwise. You've missed some points, like the need for AxKit and Cocoon to transparently cache not just XSLT transformations, but other languages in the mix too (XSP, for example). > > This allows AxKit to achieve delivery rates of 100m page views a > > day (nobody is running a site using AxKit that does that, but the point is > > still valid), on the right hardware. I don't have any performance figures > > for Cocoon, although I believe it's slightly slower than AxKit (but I'm > > biased!). > > And I'm a bit suspicios about the 'right hardware'. ( Please see below ). OK, here I have a PIII550. I'm running 3 httpd's (most servers run lots more) because this is my development box and workstation. I also run Oracle and Sybase concurrently on this same box. Standard IDE drives - nothing special. I've benchmarked AxKit here at 10m requests/day. That value scales up linearly, with both hardware and more httpds (to a certain point). > > AxKit is built in Perl using the Apache API, Cocoon is built as a > > servlet. Which seems kindof backwards when Cocoon is part of the Apache > > project ;-) > > So AxKit is mod_perl. Please corrent me if I'm wrong, but the biggest > design problem of mod_perl ( which has signicifant impact on hps ) is > > - the load > - how much RAM do you have > - how complex is the perl application > > Briefly - mod_perl is not scalable ( and not easy for load-balancing ) . That's just nonesense. Sounds like something a servlet vendor told you ;-) Seriously - this has been fought out over and over. Real people are using mod_perl on real projects. And it scales. Projects you may have heard of like deja-news, the internet movie database, slashdot, and many more. And servlet vendors have also been know to actually improve their products to try and catch up with mod_perl! > As far as I remember - we have 2 basic engines to run persistent server-side perl > applications. mod_perl and FastCGI. FastCGI provides presistensy for > perl code and perl data. mod_perl provides only persitency for perl precompiled > bytecode. Righ? Wrong. [snip some common mod_perl misconceptions] > My claim is that: > > 1. Servlets architecture is more scalable and could be even > more efficient in the case of complex applications. Your claim is not held up by the benchmarks I've seen. I'm not saying mod_perl is always faster - it balances out. Java will kick mod_perl's ass on complex loops, mathematical work, and some other fringe cases. mod_perl will kick Java's ass by miles on database access (sorry, but JDBC drivers are still playing catchup speedwise to DBI drivers - search dejanews for relevant posts), and on string handling. > 2. Caching has nothing to do with servlets design and/or > mod_perl design. > > Your original point was about 'performance penatly of java servlets'. The point I made was within the specific area of XSLT transforming servlets - every one I've seen so far has not had a significantly strong caching architecture. Why would they, when Cocoon - which is also a servlet - offers so much more to the developer? While I enjoyed this, it's completely off topic here - mail me direct if you want to rebutt. -- <Matt/> Fastnet Software Ltd. High Performance Web Specialists Providing mod_perl, XML, Sybase and Oracle solutions Email for training and consultancy availability. http://sergeant.org http://xml.sergeant.org XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|