You appear to be comparing:
1. Perl CGI forking swish-e
2. Perl CGI using SWISHE perl library
3. mod_perl handler ???
Does the mod_perl handler fork swish-e or is it using the SWISHE perl
library? For completeness you probably ought to compare both, as in the
mod_perl case the difference between forking or using the library would
show up more as they wouldn't be swamped by the overheads of forking the
CGI process and starting up perl.
I tend to run my perl CGI stuff as FastCGI rather than mod_perl, so the
extra memory required for the SWISHE perl library is less of an issue as
it doesn't get loaded into all the httpd processes. The main advantage
of the SWISHE library as I see it isn't whether it's faster or slower
than forking, but rather the potential for cross-platform independence:
there have been a number of mailings to this list on problems with
security of forking on Windows (where I believe it uses a shell) and
difficulties in identifying pathname component delimeters as they get
passed through the aforesaid shell on various dialects of Windows. I
presume these problems would be avoided by not forking.
Looking forward to 2.2 production version!
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or
privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you
are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such
Serco cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free
Serco Group plc. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2048608
Registered Office: Dolphin House, Windmill Road, Sunbury-on-Thames,
TW16 7HT, United Kingdom.
Received on Thu May 2 08:22:35 2002