4 ms·
I'm not sure about performance but I did try Hunchentoot with mod_lisp2 and apache and I encountered a number of strange errors (I'm guessing this is because of
by tarkin2 19y ago
I'm not sure about performance but I did try Hunchentoot with mod_lisp2 and apache and I encountered a number of strange errors (I'm guessing this is because of mod_lisp2's quality) so much so I had to use Hunchentoot's built-in server which gave me no problems at all.
On Hunchentoot's page the author does talk about performance issues (for dynamic not static content) if you care to look. So you're probably right but it's better to get your system running first and deal with performance second.
However, as I guess apache is faster than most of the homebrew lisp servers (although this is pure conjecture) I would like to see a more stable mod_lisp.
- zachbeane 19y agoOlder versions of hunchentoot (named TBNL) used mod_lisp and mod_lisp2 to communicate requests to the Lisp side in a simplified form (similar to FastCGI). Since Hunchentoot can speak HTTP directly now, mod_proxy is effectively the same as mod_lisp for hunchentoot's purposes. mod_lisp is not an embedded interpreter in Apache.
- Zak 19y agoTBNL could speak HTTP directly too. I'd be interested to see a mod_lisp vs mod_proxy benchmark with Hunchentoot.