"Johan Kohler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > > Fair enough. Pretend my question said "compared to apache, but also to > CGIHTTPServer on linux". The Windows box has modest specs Celeron 2.8GHz, > 256MB, but it takes 30-60s render pages. I was using it to test my cgi > locally, ie. no network, one user > > Windows bashing is fun :-) but unfortunately I don't think that is the > issue here. The answer I was looking for was something like - "yes, > change config file so-and-so in such-and-such a way" or simply "no."
There was a mention of the supplied Web server for Windows 98, which I suppose is similar to the one they used to ship with NT 4.0, but apart from being fairly basic I don't think it would help performance. > If there is no way to improve performance, could anyone tell my _why_ it's > running so slowly? Presumably spawning a process takes some time. The > code I'm running as CGI is not hectic at all. Windows isn't known for great process-spawning performance, but it occurs to me that there could be a network issue somewhere - CGIHTTPServer seems to attempt reverse DNS lookups and whilst it would seem perverse that anything would spend lots of time on reverse lookups for the address 127.0.0.1, I seem to recall strange things with previous generations of Windows and definitions of localhost. Anyway, if you want to write programs for eventual deployment in a more reliable CGI environment whilst taking advantage of a simpler/faster development environment, I am as inclined as ever to push WebStack - a framework which provides portability between different environments (from Twisted through to Zope), albeit with its own more high-level API than that exposed by plain old CGI: http://www.python.org/pypi?:action=display&name=WebStack Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
