LiteSpeed Technologies
Download Download     Blog Blog     Wiki Wiki     Forum Forum     Store     Contact Contact    

Go Back   LiteSpeed Support Forums > LiteSpeed Web Server > Feedback/Feature Requests > FastCGI > LSAPI ?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-01-2005, 12:51 PM
Jetro Jetro is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 18
Default FastCGI > LSAPI ?

Hi, at start sorry for my english.

On Your website is written that php with litespeed sapi is faster than fastcgi php. I tested this on my production server and portals and forum scripts like invisionboard are generated much slower. IPB in about 0.1s by lsapi and 0.03s in fastcgi mode. That's a big difference, about 300%! Both were compiled with almost the same directives, uses APC and same php.ini. Tested on lsws 2.1RC3 with default config (same results on 2.1RC2)

Maybe i configured some wrong?

ps. What Environment variables has lsapi that i can use in extrenal apps?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-01-2005, 02:16 PM
mistwang mistwang is offline
LiteSpeed Staff
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,590
Thank you for your feedback.

We are surprised by the result as well, can you please send us your LSAPI PHP and FCGI PHP configuration, output of phpinfo().

LSAPI's advantage over FCGI, is the communication cost between LSWS and PHP process, the pure execution speed of PHP script should be the same. So, I expect the result of speed measurement within PHP should be identical.

One possible explanation is that FCGI PHP cache the whole html page generated, and send the script at the end of the request, LSAPI does not use a buffer that big and send partial content, which add some delay during IPC I/O, those delays is added into the overall PHP execution time.

How big is the page generated in your test?

Do you have a isolated test server that you can use 'ab' to measure the performance, not just the speed measurement within PHP?

We will do some tests in our lab.

Thanks,
George
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-01-2005, 02:50 PM
Jetro Jetro is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 18
Thanks for the answer. Please check PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-11-2005, 04:54 AM
SyNeo SyNeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 59
Hi.

We have buffering enabled for the PHP, for all of the pages, in order to catch errors and present customized pages instead. Does it mean that in this case we should continue using FastCGI, because of the buffer size? Or there any way to increase the buffer size via options?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-11-2005, 08:31 AM
mistwang mistwang is offline
LiteSpeed Staff
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,590
Set output_buffering to 8K in php.ini will give you the best performance for LiteSpeed PHP.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-19-2005, 03:22 AM
SyNeo SyNeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 59
Hi.

Perhaps it's better to set this parameter to "On", and not limit it at all? Or the LSAPI is optimized best to work with 8K?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-19-2005, 09:48 AM
mistwang mistwang is offline
LiteSpeed Staff
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,590
8K is the best setting for LSAPI.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Setup for Rails via Litespeed Ruby LSAPI Justin Ruby/Rails 2 12-08-2007 07:19 PM
Usability issue with LSAPI PHP jrmarino PHP 5 05-08-2007 01:54 PM
Ruby LSAPI 2.4 and PHP LSAPI 3.1 released mistwang News 0 04-24-2007 03:35 PM
LSAPI Ruby v1.12, PHP v2.4 Released mistwang News 0 01-10-2007 01:18 PM
FastCGI responders bogus Install/Configuration 3 12-08-2003 09:31 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 AM.



- Archive - Top
© Copyright 2003-2011 LiteSpeed Technologies, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.