<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Times New Roman">Yes, the differences are significant:
FastCGI seems to give speed improvements from 20 to 100 %. I never
guessed it would be that much: I thought the Operating System
itself cached the MapServer CGI program between calls as part of
its swapping policy, but FastCGI does this way better.<br>
<br>
Jan<br>
</font><br>
On 09/01/10 12:35, Jeff McKenna wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C7E2C75.1090304@gatewaygeomatics.com"
type="cite">On 10-09-01 12:23 PM, Jan Hartmann wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> Are there any benchmarks for a
comparison between MapServer CGI and
<br>
MapServer FastCGI?
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, see the graphs included in last year's FOSS4G WMS
benchmarking exercise:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.slideshare.net/gatewaygeomatics.com/wms-performance-shootout">http://www.slideshare.net/gatewaygeomatics.com/wms-performance-shootout</a>
<br>
<br>
-jeff
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>