CGI load relative to Perl, etc. (last attempt, I promise)

[Dave Cragg]

On 26 Feb 2005, at 18:56, Richard Gaskin wrote:

> I hate to repost, but on the odd chance someone here might have some 
> info and could save me some testing time, this would be really helpful 
> to me and possibly others:
>
> Does anyone know how using Rev as a CGI stacks up against Perl, Python,
> etc. in terms of server resource usage for equivalent tasks?
>
> In brief, is Rev more efficient, less efficient, or roughly on par 
> with other scripting languages for CGI use?
>
> I have some fairly extensive processes to implement involving reading 
> large (10-30 MB files) and generating a lot of small files after 
> churning that data.  I'm hoping I can demonstrate that using Rev's 
> nifty chunk expressions will make for an efficient solution that won't 
> drag the server down any more than most other options for this sort of 
> thing.
>

I can't give an authoratative response. But I suspect you'll find Rev 
compares pretty well when doing something like working with large 
files.

Rev's weakpoint is that it has to load for each CGI request. When 
compared against something like mod-perl or ASP, which are already 
loaded by the http server, it can be considerably slower. But as the 
ratio of the time to do the task to the time to load the procees 
increases, I think you'll find the difference narrows.

For what's it's worth, I use Rev CGI scripts for an educational app 
that runs worldwide for a few thousand users, and I've never had any 
comment about performance. (this is on both Windows and Linux servers)

Cheers
Dave