|Alexei Batyr'||Aug 15, 2010 9:56 am|
|Sam Varshavchik||Aug 15, 2010 2:01 pm|
|Alexei Batyr'||Aug 16, 2010 7:44 am|
|Sam Varshavchik||Aug 16, 2010 3:47 pm|
|Alexei Batyr'||Aug 19, 2010 6:56 am|
|Nathan Eady||Aug 31, 2010 10:43 am|
|Gordon Messmer||Aug 31, 2010 6:01 pm|
|Alexei Batyr'||Sep 1, 2010 7:01 am|
|Alexei Batyr'||Sep 1, 2010 7:11 am|
|Subject:||Re: [courier-users] Sqwebmail as FCGI server|
|From:||Alexei Batyr' (leh...@pcmag.ru)|
|Date:||Aug 19, 2010 6:56:11 am|
Sam Varshavchik writes:
Alexei Batyr' writes:
Sam Varshavchik writes:
It's possible that there might be a few drops of juice squeezed by making the sqwebmail stub a FCGI-based server, but I'm still somewhat skeptical. The sqwebmail binary is tiny. It almost does not exist. Unless a server is completely out of resources, the sqwebmail executable image would probably stay cached in RAM anyway.
I believe that the primary limiting factor is really bandwidth, not CPU.
I agree that performance gain is almost negligible, but adding FCGI functionality to webmail stub could make Sqwebmail as a whole closer to modern web practices. IIRC there were some FCGI traces in very old versions of Sqwebmail which had been removed later.
Yes, it didn't work very well, furthermore after sqwebmail switched to a preforked daemon, there was no practical benefit to it.
I'm not sure I agree with your observations about FCGI. I rarely hear about it, these days. Somehow, I doubt that www.yahoo.com uses FCGI.
Of course, such giants as Yahoo and Google use their own HTTP server software. However according to Netcraft survey (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/category/web-server-survey/) almost 6% of all web sites in the world use nginx that does not contain own PHP module. PHP functionality could be added to nginx by two ways: proxying PHP requests to apache backend with mod-php or sending them to standalone php-fcgi server. Popularity of latter approach is growing.
If making webmail stub FCGI-capable is too difficult, I see another possibility - rewriting it in PHP or adding PHP stub to the existing package. Taking into account that now it's hard to find site without PHP (in the form of apache module or standalone FCGI server) maybe it's not so bad idea?
Loading an entire interpreter, with a bazillion dependencies on all the libraries that implement all the various PHP classes, incurs less overhead than a tiny binary? The size of my compiled sqwebmail binary on 32 bit Linux is 9972 bytes.
Right for the case where Sqwebmail is the only web application on the given server. But I'm talking about web server with _already loaded_ PHP interpreter, in the form of FCGI server or apache module.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by
Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev
_______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list cour...@lists.sourceforge.net Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users