----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Scholl" stesch@no-spoon.de To: tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [tbnl-devel] New version 0.5.0 / Multiple back-ends
On 2005-08-16 22:24:56, Stefan Scholl wrote:
I was just wondering ... isn't now every proxy feature in every webserver some kind of mod_lisp?
What are the pros and cons of mod_lisp vs. proxy (+ TBNL stand-alone)?
Forget it. mod_lisp is much, much faster. 3 to 4 times faster in a local test with ApacheBench against Apache 1.3 + mod_lisp + TBNL, lighttpd + mod_proxy + TBNL, and TBNL stand-alone.
Apache 1.3 + mod_lisp + TBNL was always faster.
The mod_lisp request data can be parsed without any regular expressions. Maybe that's enough to cause that difference in speed.
They are several reasons why mod_lisp is faster than mod_proxy and generally than a standalone lisp server in real world applications:
The most important point for the speed is that mod_lisp keeps the Apache => Lisp socket open.
Most Lisp implementation don't use native threads or don't allow more than one thread to be active. So using Apache as a front-end is more efficient if there are more than one processor (or an HT one)
Apache can serve the static content thus leaving more Lisp CPU time to process application logic.
BTW 14.6 request/s is very slow. Are you sure you keep the Apache/Lisp socket open ? FYI I get 440 req/s max on a dual Xeon 2GHz for a fixed reply.
Marc