Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Apache + mod_php performance
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 12:50:48 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vde6r8$fa3$2@reader1.panix.com>
References: <vcv0bl$39mnj$1@dont-email.me> <vd7hbi$tgu3$2@dont-email.me> <vd7j5q$t5d$1@reader1.panix.com> <vdbq08$1pg2p$2@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 12:50:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="15683"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 2076
Lines: 28

In article <vdbq08$1pg2p$2@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 9/27/2024 8:38 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <vd7hbi$tgu3$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> And note that keep alive was not needed for me, but it is needed in many
>>> other scenarios:
>>> - web pages with lots of graphics
>>> - high volume server to server web services
>> 
>> Actually, it's useful for any scenario in which you may send
>> several requests to the same server at roughly the same time,
>> such as an HTML document and separate CSS stylesheet, not just
>> graphics or "server to server web services".
>
>There is no difference in how graphics and CSS are handled,
>so the benefits of reusing a connection is the same.
>
>But there is a difference in number of requests. CSS will typical
>be cached by the browser. So number of CSS requests will be a fraction
>of number of HTML requests, while pages with lots of graphics
>will have many graphics requests per HTML request.

Why do you assume CSS will be cached and graphics will not?
Your understanding of where re-using HTTP connections does not
seem to be drawn from real-world experience.

	- Dan C.