Speeding up Database Access with mod_perl
Now that we have our test program, how can we actually test it? I wrote a short Perl program using Benchmark.pm, in Listing 3. The timethese function is imported by Benchmark.pm, which we bring in at the beginning of the program. We also bring in LWP::Simple, part of the “Library for WWW access in Perl” that makes it a snap to write a small web client. How simple? Well, the following one-liner returns the HTML contents at http://www.linuxjournal.com/:
perl -e 'use LWP::Simple; print get "http://www.linuxjournal.com";'
Perl does not format the output for you. That's the difference between a web browser and a web client; the former is meant to retrieve information for humans, while the latter is meant to retrieve information for programs. In this particular case, we just want to simulate 100 retrievals of each of our programs via the web. Any timing differences will thus be due to the program on the server side—which, since they are identical, means that the differences will be due to mod_perl and Apache::DBI.
How much faster is the Apache::DBI version than its CGI counterpart? Here are the results I got running time-db.pl:
 ~% ./time-db.pl Benchmark: timing 100 iterations ... Apache::DBI: 24 secs (1.77 usr 0.67 sys = 2.44 cpu) Plain CGI: 394 secs (1.10 usr 0.61 sys = 1.71 cpu)
That's quite a difference. When I first ran this benchmark, I was convinced that the plain CGI program had somehow gotten stuck. Alas, that was not the case; the overhead associated with CGI was simply too great.
Here is a second run of the same benchmark, just for comparison.
 ~% ./time-db.pl Benchmark: timing 100 iterations ... Apache::DBI: 28 secs (1.89 usr 0.61 sys = 2.50 cpu) Plain CGI: 355 secs (1.15 usr 0.62 sys = 1.77 cpu)
Yes, it looks like CGI is indeed much slower. By the way, you can see that Apache::DBI used more CPU time than plain CGI—which means that the time was spent forking the new Perl process, rather than performing our program's computations.
What if we take out the Apache::DBI directive in srm.conf and restart the server? That would give us an indication of how much overhead was being used opening the database connection. As you can see, things do indeed slow down—although admittedly not by a huge amount:
 ~% ./time-db.pl Benchmark: timing 100 iterations ... Apache::DBI: 34 secs (1.97 usr 0.63 sys = 2.60 cpu) Plain CGI: 460 secs (1.19 usr 0.60 sys = 1.79 cpu)
The moral, then, seems to be that moving from CGI to mod_perl gives a huge performance boost, and that moving from DBI to Apache::DBI gives a moderate performance boost. The more database accesses your web applications do, the more useful these technologies will probably be in your work. Perl has always been known as a useful language, but rarely as one that can help you write fast software. Now, with mod_perl and Apache::DBI, you can write web applications quickly, and watch them run quickly as well.
Fast/Flexible Linux OS Recovery
On Demand Now
In this live one-hour webinar, learn how to enhance your existing backup strategies for complete disaster recovery preparedness using Storix System Backup Administrator (SBAdmin), a highly flexible full-system recovery solution for UNIX and Linux systems.
Join Linux Journal's Shawn Powers and David Huffman, President/CEO, Storix, Inc.
Free to Linux Journal readers.Register Now!
|Working with Command Arguments||May 28, 2016|
|Secure Desktops with Qubes: Installation||May 28, 2016|
|CentOS 6.8 Released||May 27, 2016|
|Secure Desktops with Qubes: Introduction||May 27, 2016|
|Chris Birchall's Re-Engineering Legacy Software (Manning Publications)||May 26, 2016|
|ServersCheck's Thermal Imaging Camera Sensor||May 25, 2016|
- Secure Desktops with Qubes: Introduction
- Secure Desktops with Qubes: Installation
- Download "Linux Management with Red Hat Satellite: Measuring Business Impact and ROI"
- Working with Command Arguments
- CentOS 6.8 Released
- The Italian Army Switches to LibreOffice
- Linux Mint 18
- ServersCheck's Thermal Imaging Camera Sensor
- Chris Birchall's Re-Engineering Legacy Software (Manning Publications)
- Petros Koutoupis' RapidDisk
Until recently, IBM’s Power Platform was looked upon as being the system that hosted IBM’s flavor of UNIX and proprietary operating system called IBM i. These servers often are found in medium-size businesses running ERP, CRM and financials for on-premise customers. By enabling the Power platform to run the Linux OS, IBM now has positioned Power to be the platform of choice for those already running Linux that are facing scalability issues, especially customers looking at analytics, big data or cloud computing.
￼Running Linux on IBM’s Power hardware offers some obvious benefits, including improved processing speed and memory bandwidth, inherent security, and simpler deployment and management. But if you look beyond the impressive architecture, you’ll also find an open ecosystem that has given rise to a strong, innovative community, as well as an inventory of system and network management applications that really help leverage the benefits offered by running Linux on Power.Get the Guide