On 14 February 2012 01:57, Guido Stepken <gstepken@googlemail.com> wrote:
Amazon Cloud even has widely installed "memcached", hat works also as httpd cache, preventing any Apache webserver and indirect Pharo Webserver from "seeing" any http/get request.
So, i am NOT surprised, that any of those Pharoers doesn't want me here ... Pharo *is* dogsloooooow, Seaside nearly *unusable*. Unusable for any serious business application, unforseeable memory pumping effects, expecially in vservers with limited or even dynamically assigned memory.
So don't use it. Pharo is open-source project. This means that people, who contributing to it, is its customers, and solving own problems, not yours and not some virtual-customer's problems. Now if this project doesn't solves your problem, it doesn't means that this cannot be changed of that there someone who not willing to change or doing everything to prevent that. You just approach with wrong perspective. And your sentence about losing lots of money because you put bet on Pharo looks just silly. You were not participating, not reporting any problems, you basically not exist. Now once in a year you appear and repeat same story: - i losing customers/money blah blah because Pharo is dog slow... good luck next year.
I will open Benchmarks later ...
happy hacking!
best, Guido Stepken
Am 13.02.2012 17:53 schrieb "Sven Van Caekenberghe" <sven@beta9.be>:
On 13 Feb 2012, at 17:25, Guido Stepken wrote:
Hahaha! You are running Apache Server in Front, caching all I/O, leaving no load for Pharo at all, serving static webpages even.
Of course I am not: Apache 2 mod_proxy doesn't do any caching at all, it is only load balancing, but to know that you have to be able to read.
Furthermore, Apache serving static files is way faster than that, something most people know, you apparently not.
And just for the record: I am comparing Pharo with other dynamic languages for dynamically generated content.
Anyway, do you have anything useful to contribute ?
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.