headers
Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 5 Jan 2006 17:28
Picon
Gravatar

EL PAIS on Cherokee

Hi guys,

   EL PAIS has published today (2006-01-05) and article on Cherokee on
   its technology section.

   EL PAIS is the biggest Spanish non-free newspaper which about
   500,000 printed copies per days (plus the website traffic).

   The article is available on-line (in Spanish):

     http://www.elpais.es/articulo/elpcibpor/20060105elpcibpor_2/Tes/

   and the scanned version:

     http://alobbs.com/photolog/Cherokee_EL_PAIS

   I'd like to thank everybody: We are building something that is
   interesting even for non-technical people. It seems we are on the
   right way! :-))

--

-- 
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
DXPUBLICA@telefonica.net | 5 Jan 2006 17:42
Favicon

[suggestion] Can you put benchmarks on webpage?

Hi,

I'm interested in benchmarks of cherokee versus other web servers: 
apache, lighttpd, thttpd, ....

I think it could be useful for compare 
the alternatives and be sure (sure) that cherokee were the best web 
server

Thanks,
Xan.
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 5 Jan 2006 18:43
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [suggestion] Can you put benchmarks on webpage?

DXPUBLICA <at> telefonica.net wrote:

 > I'm interested in benchmarks of cherokee versus other web servers:
 > apache, lighttpd, thttpd, ....
 >
 > I think it could be useful for compare the alternatives and be sure
 > (sure) that cherokee were the best web server

   There are a couple of quite old benchmarks on-line:

     http://www.0x50.org/page/benchmarks

   I completely agree with you.  We ought to publish a new benchmark
   soon, it is been really long since the last one.

   It is meant that the next release (or was it the previous one?) was
   going to be focused in a performance improvement in order to ensure
   it remains being the fastest one, but we didn't face this point yet.

   I guess we will publish a new benchmark after the release of the
   0.5.0 version. :-)

--

-- 
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
John Hampton | 6 Jan 2006 00:12

Re: Trac and Cherokee (was: feature request to support .. in pathname of URL)

Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
>   I have changed my mind.. :-)
> 
>     http://bugs.0x50.org

I like it!  It looks great.

I notice that www.0x50.org is running 0.5.0b3.  Are you using FastCGI 
for Trac? Or just plain CGI?

-John
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 6 Jan 2006 02:34
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Trac and Cherokee

John Hampton wrote:

 >>   I have changed my mind.. :-)
 >>
 >>     http://bugs.0x50.org
 >
 > I like it!  It looks great.

   Yeah, Pablo and you made me realize it was a better option :)

 > I notice that www.0x50.org is running 0.5.0b3.  Are you using
 > FastCGI for Trac? Or just plain CGI?

   Currently, the FastCGI handler in HEAD is slightly broken (it is
   cleaner than the last patch though).  As soon as we get it finished
   I will release 0.5.0; by the moment, it runs as CGI, which is fair
   enough in this case :-)

--

-- 
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
John Hampton | 6 Jan 2006 06:07

Re: Trac and Cherokee

Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
>   Currently, the FastCGI handler in HEAD is slightly broken (it is
>   cleaner than the last patch though).  As soon as we get it finished
>   I will release 0.5.0; by the moment, it runs as CGI, which is fair
>   enough in this case :-)

Can you share the specs of your server?  I got Trac running with 
cherokee on a p3 1GHz with 1 gig ram and a dual p2 400MHz with 512 megs 
ram.  Both worked, but were incredibly slow.  This wasn't due to 
cherokee, but rather to the time it took to load python and all the trac 
modules, etc.  Apache with Trac running as CGI was about the same speed 
of slow. Is your server a lot beefier? or did you make any modifications 
to help increase the speed of Trac?

-John
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mark Nipper | 6 Jan 2006 07:42

mime.conf vs. mime.types

        Just out of curiosity, is there any reason Cherokee uses
its own format in mime.conf instead of following the same format
which Apache and other Unix applications have settled upon using
in mime.types?  The reason being, the version of mime.types
shipped with Debian seems to be far more complete than the
mime.conf shipped with Cherokee.

        I'll assume here that people other than myself also have
a file /etc/mime.types (or some equivalent) even though they are
not necessarily running Debian.

--

-- 
Mark Nipper                                                e-contacts:
832 Tanglewood Drive                                nipsy <at> bitgnome.net
Bryan, Texas 77802-4013                     http://nipsy.bitgnome.net/
(979)575-3193                      AIM/Yahoo: texasnipsy ICQ: 66971617

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GG/IT d- s++:+ a- C++$ UBL++++$ P--->+++ L+++$ !E---
W++(--) N+ o K++ w(---) O++ M V(--) PS+++(+) PE(--)
Y+ PGP t+ 5 X R tv b+++ <at>  DI+(++) D+ G e h r++ y+(**)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

---begin random quote of the moment---
cult: (n) A small, unpopular religion.
religion: (n) A large, popular cult.
----end random quote of the moment----
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 6 Jan 2006 11:26
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Trac and Cherokee

John Hampton wrote:

 >>   Currently, the FastCGI handler in HEAD is slightly broken (it is
 >>   cleaner than the last patch though).  As soon as we get it finished
 >>   I will release 0.5.0; by the moment, it runs as CGI, which is fair
 >>   enough in this case :-)
 >
 > Can you share the specs of your server?  I got Trac running with
 > cherokee on a p3 1GHz with 1 gig ram and a dual p2 400MHz with 512
 > megs ram.  Both worked, but were incredibly slow.

   It's slightly bigger, 3GHz and 512Mb.

 > This wasn't due to cherokee, but rather to the time it took to load
 > python and all the trac modules, etc.  Apache with Trac running as
 > CGI was about the same speed of slow. Is your server a lot beefier?
 > or did you make any modifications to help increase the speed of
 > Trac?

   Yeah, in both cases it has to load the interpreter and all the bunch
   of Python files.  Anyway, in this case, we have not so many bugs
   reports to become in a low performance problem, at least by the
   moment.

   Anyway, don't worry so much, I hope we will release 0.5.0 soon (with
   FastCGI support) :-)

--

-- 
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 6 Jan 2006 11:53
Picon
Gravatar

Re: mime.conf vs. mime.types

Mark Nipper wrote:

 > Just out of curiosity, is there any reason Cherokee uses its own
 > format in mime.conf instead of following the same format which
 > Apache and other Unix applications have settled upon using in
 > mime.types?  The reason being, the version of mime.types shipped
 > with Debian seems to be far more complete than the mime.conf shipped
 > with Cherokee.

   You are right. We have been using a different file without a real
   reason. Actually, Rodrigo and me were speaking about how to change
   the parser in order to improve the MIME support some time ago.

   If we change the file format we must look for a way in which support
   the cache expiration period value.  In the current configuration
   file, you can define types like:

=====
image/jpeg {
   max-age 1800
   suffixes jpg, jpeg, jpe, jfif
}
=====

   which means, the "image/jpeg" files that are sent by this server can
   be cached for 1800 secs in a proxy cache.

 > I'll assume here that people other than myself also have a file
 > /etc/mime.types (or some equivalent) even though they are not
 > necessarily running Debian.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 6 Jan 2006 12:12
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Dynamic VirtualHosts in Cherokee

Hi Pablo,

 > I've been looking in Cherokee for an option to have dynamic
 > VirtualHosts. What I've in mind is to host multiple/dynamic virtual
 > domains, for example:
 >
 > * If visitor goes to joe.foobar.com, Cherokee will set the UserDir
 > to /home/joe/public_html and DocumentRoot to /usr/share/webapp.  *
 > If visitor goes to peter.foobar.com, Cherokee will set the UserDir
 > to /home/peter/public_hml and DocumentRoot to /usr/share/webapp.
 >
 > So Cherokee will be taking the *subdomain* part and using it as a
 > variable (%0, to give it a name), so domain names will be:
 >
 > %0.foobar.com => /home/%0/public_html
 >
 > Now, I've been looking in Cherokee doc and seems that Cherokee doesn't
 > support these kind of things as Apache does with mod_rewrite. In Apache
 > you can do this with mod_rewrite, don't know if there are plans to have
 > this option in Cherokee.

   The idea is interesting.. :-m but I am not quite sure if it is that
   kind of feature nobody will use at the same time it increases our
   base code.

   Can you think of a way in which generalize it? That might be much
   more useful..  Ideas?

   PS: Sorry for the delay ;)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane