Interesting.

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!

Alex Lyons.



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
information.

Serco cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free
from viruses.

Serco Group plc. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2048608
Registered Office: Dolphin House, Windmill Road, Sunbury-on-Thames,
TW16 7HT, United Kingdom.