------Original Message------ From: Phill Hugo <phill@fortune-cookie.com> To: Firestar <theebh@mail.com> Sent: July 6, 2000 10:17:19 AM GMT Subject: Re: [Zope] Is Zope slow?
If you want the best of both worlds, map out the images and large static files from apache's config to go to itself and forward the rest over PCGI to Zope (read up on mod_rewrite). This way, the dynamic stuff is served by zope and the static stuff is handled by apache, both doing what they are good at. You can add LocalFS to Zope to allow administration of the static files too. This is what PHP does, that is just a module which handles php files, everything else is handled by Apache. PHP itself isn't that fast (it doesn't even cache compiled code).
Ok, this is getting way too much for me:) Guess i will check out on them(PCGI & LocalFS) when i have 'mastered' the basics of Zope.
A decent 500Mhz PIII will knock out about 80 pages per second under Zope (~40 for complex things) but given that many sites where speed is important are very graphical, the ratio of a zope hit to an apache one is reasonable - on the site I'm working on this is about 1:10 and current traffic (not yet under Zope) is 18Million hits per month.
Reading from the Qube website, i think they are running another benchmark again(this time comparing Apache+PHP and AOLServer+PHP). This would give a clearer picture on the performance of each appserver/webserver handling dynamic content.
If ever you run out of power (or reach the halfway point) you can start thinking of adding some caching or migrate to ZEO. In fact, if that happens, you'd be stupid not to have some sort of cluster - you'd have a very busy site!
Phill
Wow, somehow there seems to be so many features offered by Zope(ZEO, Zwiki, PTK, etc...) - all these jargons; i will certainly check them out:) regards, firestar ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup