Subject: Re: apache problems gone with 1.50
From: Sam Edge <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:36:30 +0100

Stipe Tolj <[email-masked]> wrote in
<[email-masked]>
in gmane.os.cygwin on Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:18 +0200:

Andrew DeFaria <[email-masked]>:
> > 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/