Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Sam Edge <sam DOT edgeZZZ AT lineone DOT net>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: apache problems gone with 1.50
Date:	Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:36:30 +0100
Organization:	.
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<qo3fivo7at2i6nli043hed9056ua0fd8f5@4ax.com>
References:	<NDBBLLFMLFMANIDPNADCMEJNFCAA DOT wpmccormick AT covad DOT net> <bg6tnd$q5i$1 AT main DOT gmane DOT org> <3F26FA66 DOT F08C0146 AT wapme-systems DOT de>
In-Reply-To:	<3F26FA66.F08C0146@wapme-systems.de>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Posting-Agent:	Hamster/2.0.0.1
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id h6U9bWv21653

Stipe Tolj <tolj AT wapme-systems DOT de> wrote in
<3F26FA66 DOT F08C0146 AT wapme-systems DOT de>
in gmane.os.cygwin on Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:18 +0200:

Andrew DeFaria <ADeFaria AT Salira DOT com>:
> > This is good to hear. Perhaps I will switch from Apache for Windows ->
> > Apache under Cygwin. Only problem is I also trying to move my web site
> > over to a Linux box instead - which makes this all kinda moot. However I
> > do have a friend who wishes to host his web site on a Windows box and I
> > am contemplating using Cygwin for most services. If Apache under Cygwin
> > works well with 1.5.0 then perhaps I'll just go that way. I wonder if
> > anybody has measured the speed difference between Apache for Windows and
> > Apache under Cygwin...

> I did some time ago. It was almost 35-40% slower on Apache for Cygwin
> then his native (win32) counterpart.
> Plain html file requests, no php or any other "magic".

Andrew might want to consider compiling Cygwin-Apache with the native
Winsock option. This way it still lives in the Cygwin file system
space so has the POSIX/Linux style configuration files but bypasses
the Cygwin Berkeley->Winsock socket API translation. Apparently this
helps.

(But I suspect the majority of the performance difference Stipe has
found is the use of threads in the native Windows version against
forking child processes in the *X versions which is a more expensive
operation.)

Regards
-- 
Sam Edge

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -