Edi, do you think SBCL would change the picture? I am not sure but I heard it uses native threads. I'll try ApacheBench. Do you think switching to Apache 2 would help here? Thank you, Andrew On 3/30/07, Edi Weitz <edi@agharta.de> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:24:43 -0400, "Andrei Stebakov" <lispercat@gmail.com> wrote:
I got a folder on my linux box that contains about 240 images of font preview generated from cl-gd (Thanks, Edi!).
Nice... :)
When I show them from static apache handler it takes approximately 30 seconds. Same thing from hunchentoot static handler (create-folder-dispatcher-and-handler) takes about 50 seconds. I understand it's not a big deal, but still I'd like to know what might get in the way. I use hunchentoot behind mod-proxy. Here are links (first is static apache, second is hunchentoot): http://www.greenpixeldesign.com/fonts.html http://www.greenpixeldesign.com/cphandler/fonts.html
From tests on my Linux box (using ApacheBench and a localhost connection) my impression was that serving static files with Hunchentoot wasn't slower than with Apache. On your website it looks
I guess it's the thread switching that takes the additional time. like on the Apache page always two or three pictures are downloaded concurrently while on the Hunchentoot version they come one after another. It seems you're using CMUCL which uses "green threads," so that would explain it.
If you want to pursue this further, I'd recommend testing with ApacheBench and different settings for its "-c" parameter.
Of course, you could/should also try without mod_proxy. And with mod_lisp - that takes a bit of the concurrency off of CMUCL's shoulders. _______________________________________________ tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel