steve roussey wrote: > This actually sounds like an argument for NOT using mod_php. It sounds > like an argument for using Apache2 or lighttpd or xyz in conjection > with FastCGI. (Or a proxy arangement, which I've done, though in my > personal case, I like to get the same scaling with less machines since > I have to buy the machines). In that case, the webserver can be made > lightweight (not sure how lightweight Apache2 can be, but who knows?) > handling many open connections. Then there is a (much) smaller number > of heavy PHP processes in FastCGI.
Well, I am not sure about your conclusion there. Generally you don't want trivial requests going through the heavyweight Apache process, so you can either try to make Apache less heavyweight and separate out the dynamic stuff which is what you are suggesting, or you can separate out the trivial requests. The large players do the latter by Akamizing all their static content or the trivially dynamic stuff and only handle heavy requests on their own servers. For smaller players the common solution is to have a separate set of servers doing static requests. thttpd, Tux, lighttpd, etc. which are easier to strip down than the heavier (and more flexible) Apache server. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
