Re: Re: LWP::Parallel vs. HTTP::GHTTP vs. IO::Socket

You can use Parallel::ForkManager to parallelize HTTP::MHTTP or HTTP::GHTTP calls easily and apply a limit to the maximum number of child processes.

There are a number of ways to handle getting the retrieved data back to the parent or other process that don't require use of shared memory:

use MLDBM::Sync
use Cache::Cache (specifically Cache::FileCache)
use database that runs as a daemon (e.g. MySQL or PostgresQL).

Comment on Re: Re: LWP::Parallel vs. HTTP::GHTTP vs. IO::Socket

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: LWP::Parallel vs. HTTP::GHTTP vs. IO::Socket
by hacker (Priest) on May 16, 2003 at 23:21 UTC

HTTP::MHTTP

   use strict;
   use HTTP::MHTTP;

   # This url REALLY exists, but is a virtual host 
   # on a domain shared by multiple hosts.
   my $url = 'http://advogato.org/recentlog.html;

   http_init();
   switch_debug(1);
   http_call("GET", $url);
   print http_response();
[download]

Thanks to bart and ChemBoy for the enlightening discussion that exposed this issue.

Based on my loose testing (excluding HTTP::MHTTP), it looks like HTTP::GHTTP is the fastest, followed closely by HTTP::Lite and LWP::Simple behind that. I haven't done benching against Parallel::ForkManager yet with these, so that waits to be seen.

The other issue also, is the speed at which DNS queries are resolved. I think I can speed that up with a local database of resolved sites, but on the first run, that'll take a hit.

Thanks for the tips and hints though, I'm closer to a functional solution, but it seems the more I test, the farther down the stack I get, closer to writing my own code around IO::Socket. I'd like to avoid that if I can.

[reply]
[d/l]


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks