r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!Cheyenne] Discussions about the Cheyenne Web Server

Dockimbel
11-Oct-2006
[51x2]
Scot: Cheyenne can interface with PHP using FactCGI. A FastCGI client 
alpha implementation is currently built in Cheyenne. All you need 
is a php executable compiled with FastCGI. I've already tested several 
php apps (even big ones like eGroupware), it works well and it's 
fast ! But, the configuration options are currently hardcoded in 
Cheyenne (need to export them in config file) and there's no dynamic 
php instance management (you have to launch each php-fastcgi server 
by hand). Once these 2 feature will be integrated in Cheyenne, you'll 
be able to run easily and php application.
Scot: REBOL/Core 2.6x or View 1.3.x are ok for Cheyenne. Avoid the 
experimental async REBOL kernels.
Pekr
11-Oct-2006
[53]
is FastCGI.r usable separately as a free fastcgi protocol for REBOL, 
or does it work only in terms of Cheyenne?
Dockimbel
11-Oct-2006
[54x2]
Oldes: View can be a good choice for server is you need server-side 
dynamic image generation or manipulation. The drawback is for Unix 
servers, they'll require X libs to be installed.
Pekr: The protocol is not specific to Cheyenne, but you'll have to 
"extract" it from the module to be able to reuse it. But, we're talking 
about a FastCGI CLIENT implementation, and what you have in mind, 
I guess, is a SERVER implementation (like in /Command)...
Pekr
11-Oct-2006
[56]
so how does it work then?
Dockimbel
11-Oct-2006
[57x3]
run easily and php application
 = run easily any php application"
It supposed to work almost the same as mod_fastcgi for Apache.
It connect to a server application, like php-fastcgi or a REBOL FastCGI 
server built with /Command, or any other server accepting FastCGI 
clients. Then it sends the HTTP request and wait for a response back.
Pekr
11-Oct-2006
[60x2]
The trouble is with Windows, we still have no-solution. Command Windows 
fastcgi was never fixed - 'external mode is pretty useless
ok, the trick is to use Cheyenne plus Rebol instead of apache, so 
who needs fastcgi :-)
Maarten
11-Oct-2006
[62x2]
Doc: there is a SSL serverside command version (I know bcause I can 
see it...somewhere) so you should really push it.
On windows, a 2.6.2 Command version, no encap
Dockimbel
11-Oct-2006
[64x3]
Pekr: Exactly !
Marteen: Carl told me about some flags to set properly in the ssl:// 
port to set the direction : server to client.
I still don't have this info.
Terry
11-Oct-2006
[67]
You've made my day Nenad, thanks.
Maxim
11-Oct-2006
[68x2]
stupid question, just so its obvious... will cheyenne remain open 
source indefinitely ?
Sorry if this question has been asked before, I do not know... can 
you give me an idea of capacity of the server?  will it scale to 
thousands of connections or is it limited to hundreds (or less).
Maarten
11-Oct-2006
[70]
Doc: I have pinged Carl on the SSL channel on another (very private) 
world.
Terry
11-Oct-2006
[71]
With the four and sixteen RSP demo, getting the following error  
 script error !
Invalid path value: hits
Maxim
11-Oct-2006
[72]
maarten, thanks, I'm needing it too.  if cheyenne can handle big 
loads, and SSL, there is a good chance I'll try to use it.  The release 
commes out at a really good time for me.
Maarten
11-Oct-2006
[73]
Hope it gets faster to 1.0.x then the mysql driver ;-)
Graham
11-Oct-2006
[74x2]
I've been using Cheyenne for the last couple of years.
I've not had any stability problems.
Maarten
11-Oct-2006
[76]
Doc: why not bundle mysql:// with it as well, and add a couple of 
CGI/session/cookie libs?
Graham
11-Oct-2006
[77]
but nor have I subjected it to any heavy loading.
Terry
11-Oct-2006
[78]
Have you tried any benchmarking Graham?
Graham
11-Oct-2006
[79x2]
Nope.
I just use it for webmail.
Terry
11-Oct-2006
[81]
hmm, my Rebol is getting rusty.
Graham
11-Oct-2006
[82x3]
http://www.compkarori.co.nz:8001/index.rsp
source for each of the rsp pages is at the bottom of the screen
userid: test password: account
Dockimbel
11-Oct-2006
[85]
Open source: I see no points in getting it closed source. It will 
remain open source (BSD). And I hope that once 1.0 is out, that developer 
will contribute to bring new modules and extend it capabilities.
Graham
11-Oct-2006
[86]
never got round to writing the code to send mail .. so it just receives 
mail.
Maxim
11-Oct-2006
[87]
thanks doc... just wanted confirmation of what I expected.
Graham
11-Oct-2006
[88]
And thank goodness it's not LGPL or variant
Maxim
11-Oct-2006
[89]
and capacity?  benchmarks?  any measurable (known/REBOL) limits?
Graham
11-Oct-2006
[90]
Will did some benchmarks once ...
Dockimbel
11-Oct-2006
[91]
Maxim: Cheyenne is scalable. I've tested it with 500 simultaneous 
connections without noticing problems. It needs to be tested deeper, 
I dont know the current real limits (It should be limited only by 
available memory and cpu power).
Graham
11-Oct-2006
[92]
Will "Mike, I started using Apache and rebol as cgi, this is not 
suited for performances as on every call to the cgi, a new instance 
of rebol is  initialized, run and closed.

I thought about using fastcgi, but never came to a working solution.
Now I use uniserve as main webserver, here some advantages:

-it is fast! On my local machine I get +- 600 req/sec for static 
pages and a max of 160req/sec for dynamic rsp pages

-it is written in rebol, I could easly(less than 10 lines code) add 
a rewrite engine

-child process are persistent, this mean you can keep state of your 
web applications, implement caching, keep a pool of connection to 
databases open (in apache + rebol/cgi you'd have to open and close 
the connection for every request)
-it is written by Dock whom I may be the biggest fan ;-)

btw I'm running an unreleased version (have bought commercial support) 
 that support http 1.1, stuff like If-Modified etc..

If you have more specific questions, I'll be glad to try and answer."
Maxim
11-Oct-2006
[93]
thanks.  at least I know it does not suffer from the 50 tcp connection 
limit of REBOL which some people have report IIRC.
Dockimbel
11-Oct-2006
[94x4]
I did some bench with Apache 2.0 a few month ago: results were showing 
10% slower than Apache for small files, and 20-30% faster for > 64kb 
files. Theses results are very encouraging given the fact that Apache 
is compiled C while Cheyenne is interpreted REBOL.
If someone is willing to make new benchs, I'll be very glad to see 
the results.
Btw, there's still some space for speed improvements.
Marteen: Thansk for using your "red phone" ;-)
Terry
11-Oct-2006
[98]
Doing a quick ('n dirty) benchmark..
Maxim
11-Oct-2006
[99x2]
dock, is the rebcode test version of rebol compatible with cheyenne?
(sorry, I meant 'doc )