Lenz wrote:
Hi Lee,
we are a Java shop and our experience with Java has been much the one
you say - it does scale pretty well and it is very solid. What I was
trying to say is that Java is not very well suited to the classic,
Unix-style, fire-up-process-and-let-it-die that goes for CGI/AGI
programming. On the other side, I have no doubt that with an application
server and FastAGI you can get quite a lot of bang for the buck. :)
l.
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:07:50 +0200, Lee Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
We have found that generally speaking, running the FastAGI server on
the same machine as Asterisk yields better performance than launching
separate exe processes through the dial plan.
Completely anecdotal of course. This is careful research conducted
over our entire 5 customer base...
I get what you are saying, I was agreeing with you. :)
We *were* writing all of our AGI as binary executables and even then,
the FastAGI server that we eventually built still gets better
performance vs. when we launched separate AGI per call from the
dialplan. My guess is that it is easier on the system for an existing
executable (FastAGI Server) to spawn threads of execution for short
periods of time to handle (Fasg)AGI requests than it is to run separate
executable AGI's instead. We're hoping that performance will be
improved even more when we introduce pooling of common objects (db
access for example).
--
Warm Regards,
Lee
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
