Cry for help - make this faster

yes, it will require deep ruby and 'c' knowledge

   http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/acgi-0.1.0/README

and, obviously

   http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/

i think it's a potentially powerful idea. if you know how to make it faster,
please do so and send in a patch. at this point only a factor of 2x is need
to close the gap on fastcgi. at this point the emphasis is on making it as
fast as possible. scalibility and portability might come next.

good luck.

-a

···

--
in order to be effective truth must penetrate like an arrow - and that is
likely to hurt. -- wei wu wei

Ara.T.Howard wrote:

yes, it will require deep ruby and 'c' knowledge

  http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/acgi-0.1.0/README

and, obviously

  http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/

i think it's a potentially powerful idea. if you know how to make it faster,
please do so and send in a patch. at this point only a factor of 2x is need
to close the gap on fastcgi. at this point the emphasis is on making it as
fast as possible. scalibility and portability might come next.

good luck.

-a

That looks way cool. I heartily support it. I have some C IPC experience, but not in windows.

Ara.T.Howard wrote:

yes, it will require deep ruby and 'c' knowledge

  http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/acgi-0.1.0/README

and, obviously

  http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/

i think it's a potentially powerful idea. if you know how to make it faster,
please do so and send in a patch. at this point only a factor of 2x is need
to close the gap on fastcgi. at this point the emphasis is on making it as
fast as possible. scalibility and portability might come next.

good luck.

-a

this is a great thing - could it make it into ruby 2 std lib ( or did i get something wrong) ?

Ara.T.Howard wrote:

yes, it will require deep ruby and 'c' knowledge

  http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/acgi-0.1.0/README

and, obviously

  http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/

i think it's a potentially powerful idea. if you know how to make it
faster,
please do so and send in a patch. at this point only a factor of 2x is
need
to close the gap on fastcgi. at this point the emphasis is on making it as
fast as possible. scalibility and portability might come next.

good luck.

-a

Hmmm ... by portability do you mean "runs on other than Linux?" :slight_smile:

What sort of performance testing framework are you using?

have a whack at it! :wink: i played with threaded versions, non-threaded
versions, versions using mmap, versions using named pipes, versions using
shared memory (sysv ipc), etc. none were significantly fast than the simple
version. also, i was trying to make a *nix impl which at least stood a chance
of being ported to windows - thus the use of named pipes.

at the moment it's just a toy, but it could become something.

regards.

-a

···

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Hans Fugal wrote:

Ara.T.Howard wrote:

yes, it will require deep ruby and 'c' knowledge

  http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/acgi-0.1.0/README

and, obviously

  http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/

i think it's a potentially powerful idea. if you know how to make it
faster, please do so and send in a patch. at this point only a factor of
2x is need to close the gap on fastcgi. at this point the emphasis is on
making it as fast as possible. scalibility and portability might come
next.

good luck.

-a

That looks way cool. I heartily support it. I have some C IPC experience,
but not in windows.

--
in order to be effective truth must penetrate like an arrow - and that is
likely to hurt. -- wei wu wei

i suppose that's an idea - but at this point it's far from ready for prime
time.

cheers.

-a

···

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Jonas Hartmann wrote:

Ara.T.Howard wrote:

yes, it will require deep ruby and 'c' knowledge

  http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/acgi-0.1.0/README

and, obviously

  http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/

i think it's a potentially powerful idea. if you know how to make it
faster, please do so and send in a patch. at this point only a factor of
2x is need to close the gap on fastcgi. at this point the emphasis is on
making it as fast as possible. scalibility and portability might come
next.

good luck.

-a

this is a great thing - could it make it into ruby 2 std lib ( or did i get
something wrong) ?

--
in order to be effective truth must penetrate like an arrow - and that is
likely to hurt. -- wei wu wei

Ara.T.Howard wrote:

yes, it will require deep ruby and 'c' knowledge

  http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/acgi-0.1.0/README

and, obviously

  http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/

i think it's a potentially powerful idea. if you know how to make it
faster,
please do so and send in a patch. at this point only a factor of 2x is
need
to close the gap on fastcgi. at this point the emphasis is on making it as
fast as possible. scalibility and portability might come next.

good luck.

-a

Hmmm ... by portability do you mean "runs on other than Linux?" :slight_smile:

i'm afraid so - sigh...

on a side note, i hear 2.6.17 will auto-tune the tcp-ip stack, that ought to
make for a fast web app server...

What sort of performance testing framework are you using?

just ab :wink:

this is still in the proof of concept phase for sure.

cheers.

-a

···

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
--
in order to be effective truth must penetrate like an arrow - and that is
likely to hurt. -- wei wu wei

Ara.T.Howard wrote:

yes, it will require deep ruby and 'c' knowledge

  http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/acgi-0.1.0/README

and, obviously

  http://codeforpeople.com/lib/ruby/acgi/

i think it's a potentially powerful idea. if you know how to make it
faster,
please do so and send in a patch. at this point only a factor of 2x is
need
to close the gap on fastcgi. at this point the emphasis is on making
it as
fast as possible. scalibility and portability might come next.

good luck.

-a

Hmmm ... by portability do you mean "runs on other than Linux?" :slight_smile:

i'm afraid so - sigh...

on a side note, i hear 2.6.17 will auto-tune the tcp-ip stack, that
ought to
make for a fast web app server...

I was thinking Tux, actually. :slight_smile:

What sort of performance testing framework are you using?

just ab :wink:

There are quite a few out there.

···

ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: