On 5/11/06, c.k.lester email@example.com wrote:
Mathias W. wrote:
WEBrick isn’t a performance server, but it’s very very easy to get up
and running, no configuration needed, at all.
I’ve got Apache up and running sans FastCGI (or Lighttpd). Will Webrick
have equal or better performance than my current configuration (which is
The slowness sounds to me as if something isn’t working as it should,
Apache with FastCGI should be working fairly quick. (have you updated
the .htaccess to use the dispatch.fcgi file instead of the
dispatch.cgi one?) WEBrick is the slowest server you could pick and
probably won’t handle traffic too well if you ran it on a live system,
but in my experience it’s pretty snappy for the single requests I do
while developing (I got no big projects yet, but it always gives me a
result well under a second so far).
It never caches stuff either, so it’s perfect for development.
Forgive the newbality, and just curious, but what makes a non-caching
server perfect for development?
If the server would cache your stuff you might not see the effects of
your changes at first refresh, which would be kinda annoying as you
change your code, wouldn’t it?
I’m no expert either, so I might get some details wrong, but overall
if you want a webserver that’s easy to get running, try WEBrick and
upgrade to something with better performance once you suffer from
WEBrick’s lack of performance. It’s not a problem until it’s a