Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    text
    copied!<p>Firstly, when comparing /plain/ URL rewriting at the application level to using /plain/ CGI (CGI can be PHP, ISAPI, ASP.NET, etc.) with serving static pages, serving static files will always, always win. There is simply less work. For example, in Windows and Linux (that I know of) there are even enhancements in the kernel for serving static files on a local drive via HTTP. To further make the point I even found a benchmark using several servers and OSs: <a href="http://www.litespeedtech.com/web-server-performance-comparison-litespeed-2.0-vs.html#RESULT" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.litespeedtech.com/web-server-performance-comparison-litespeed-2.0-vs.html#RESULT</a> Note that serving static files is dramatically faster than using any type of CGI</p> <p>However, there can potentially be performance and scalability gains by using rewritten URLs effectively and it is done with caching. If you return proper cache headers (see <a href="http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.9" rel="nofollow noreferrer">cache-control directive in HTTP documentation</a>) then it enables downstream servers to cache the data so you won't even get hits on your site. However, I guess you could get the same benefit with static pages :) I just happen to read an article on this very topic a day or two ago at the High Scalability blog: <a href="http://highscalability.com/strategy-understanding-your-data-leads-best-scalability-solutions" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://highscalability.com/strategy-understanding-your-data-leads-best-scalability-solutions</a></p>
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload