[phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML

Hello,

Nick Lindridge wrote:
> 
> >
> > Oh and there are webservers that focus on serving static contant like
> > Tux and X15 for Linux that can push an amazing amount of data. They do
> > a lot of funky stuff to get I/O time down to the absolute minimum.
> 
> There's an interesting paper discussing the Flash server,
> http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~vivek/flash99/
> and that research did a number of obvious, but also some not so obvious,
> techniques to maximise performance. Apache is really quite a slow web
> server, but it's highly flexible, and of course that's nice. I'd probably
> still use Apache for dynamic content, but use one of the much faster web
> servers for static content if I had a really heavily loaded site.
> 
> There are also techniques that can be explored such as putting the web
> server into the kernel, and I believe some of the largest internet sites
> exploit this.

I have not reached any conclusions, but for static content there
mod_mmap_static that pre-loads a specified list of files into shared
memory and serve them from there so it prevents Apache from touching the
disk.

For HTML it is well worthy to use modules that compress and cache pages
because the majority of the browsers supports compression and it usually
reduces in 5 times the time it takes to deliver HTML pages to the
browsers. This means that each Web server process will be tied with each
client connection for much less time freeing the processes to serve
other requests and preventing the need for the server to fork more
processes during access surges.

Regards,
Manuel Lemos


------------------------------------------------------------------------
  www.php-accelerator.co.uk           Home of the free PHP Accelerator

To post, send email to phpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, email phpa-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with subject unsubscribe

Other related posts: