I''m using WEBrick (in development mode) to serve a very simple page. The browser receives from the server two things: 1) the html 2) a css file What''s strange is that it takes the server almost ten times longer to send the css file than it takes it to send the html (11ms for the html, 120 ms for the css). Both files are about the same size. What''s going on? Why is serving css so much more expensive than rhtmls? Thanks!! --andrei ps: i tried putting the css inside the html and the response time is the same as for a normal html. so it''s clearly not a size issue. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
andreim wrote:> I''m using WEBrick (in development mode) to serve a very simple page. > The browser receives from the server two things: > 1) the html > 2) a css file > What''s strange is that it takes the server almost ten times longer to > send the css file than it takes it to send the html (11ms for the > html, 120 ms for the css). Both files are about the same size. > What''s going on? > Why is serving css so much more expensive than rhtmls? > Thanks!! > > --andrei > > ps: i tried putting the css inside the html and the response time is > the same as for a normal html. so it''s clearly not a size issue.For those times, I really wouldn''t worry about it. Running Webrick in dev mode is supposed to be slow. If you are getting the same results in an Apache/Mogrel production environment then it might be with further investigation. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
mongrel outperforms webrick by all means. just get rid of webrick. On Jun 3, 8:19 pm, andreim <andr...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I''m using WEBrick (in development mode) to serve a very simple page. > The browser receives from the server two things: > 1) the html > 2) a css file > What''s strange is that it takes the server almost ten times longer to > send the css file than it takes it to send the html (11ms for the > html, 120 ms for the css). Both files are about the same size. > What''s going on? > Why is serving css so much more expensive than rhtmls? > Thanks!! > > --andrei > > ps: i tried putting the css inside the html and the response time is > the same as for a normal html. so it''s clearly not a size issue.--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 6/3/07, liquidautumn <denis-PfseE6/LE5QxpvK4C0GaPQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > mongrel outperforms webrick by all means. just get rid of webrick.On another note, if webrick, mongrel, or anything else ruby based is serving css or other static assets, you should rethink things and let nginx/lighttpd/apache deal with it. -- Rick Olson http://lighthouseapp.com http://weblog.techno-weenie.net http://mephistoblog.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
me personally developing with apache proxying to mongrel (because of mod_xsendfile used), however I think such setup is pretty rare for development environment in production - no doubt. just wondering why people keep suffering with webrick, while in recent rails script/server starting mongrel by default. On Jun 4, 2:27 am, "Rick Olson" <technowee...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 6/3/07, liquidautumn <d...-PfseE6/LE5QxpvK4C0GaPQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > mongrel outperforms webrick by all means. just get rid of webrick. > > On another note, if webrick, mongrel, or anything else ruby based is > serving css or other static assets, you should rethink things and let > nginx/lighttpd/apache deal with it. > > -- > Rick Olsonhttp://lighthouseapp.comhttp://weblog.techno-weenie.nethttp://mephistoblog.com--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---