From: JZ Date: 2005-03-31T15:24:45+09:00 Subject: Re: Poor efficency of Ruby... Dnia Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:34:31 +0900, Austin Ziegler napisa�(a): > Python scripts that aren't run as .pyc files will > have to be recompiled every time. No. Python *automatically compiles* every imported module. It is the feature of the language. > Rails works best as if it were an application server using FastCGI > as a backend. With mod_proxy, it is certainly possible to use the > Webrick server as an application server via Apache. Webrick is not only httpd server? It can listen like Webkit on two ports? Standard Webkit listen at port 8086 (to that port adapter redirect requests from apache). Webkit can listen also on another port as httpd. Then port 8086 is used internaly. > Ruby executes plenty fast, and the script compile step is fast, too. > Consider -- the *whole* of the very high level framework *and > application* represented by Rails compiles in under a second. Not for my win32 box. I will change to fcgi and maybe lighthttpd... > FastCGI is better than mod_ruby, as far as I can tell. Why? For the same Apache, mod_ruby works slower than fcgi? > Additionally, it is my understanding that lighttpd and FastCGI are > even better than Apache Hmm, it is interesting. >> Yes, but Apache is much more powerfull. Those all light embeded >> httpd servers included in Ruby (or Python) can be usefull only for >> testing, not heavy loaded production sites. > > Mmm. Not completely. It depends on *what* your production load is. > Don't make performance assumptions unless you are quite familiar > with your application's needs and your users' profiles. I assumed many (over 100) concurent request per second. -- JZ