On 8/26/06, Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt S Trout wrote:
> Axkit2 looks like it'll be a lovely candidate for a production-quality
> scalable standalone server, although it's a single-process affair with
> optional forking so we'll need to figure out how to manage that appropriately
> to maximise performance.
>
> I've been having some fairly sick thoughts about preforked Catalyst handlers
> and $dbh pools (with some assistance from a Storage subclass) but we'll get to
> that later :)
Won't that be just like Lighttpd and FastCGI? That's the trouble with
any asynchronous I/O approach: you have to do some kind of
FastCGI/mod_perl backend server to run all the real code in because the
async server can't talk to any databases.
Isn't that the whole point of this architecture.
The lightweight daemon that listens on port 80 either serves static content, or asks the heavy app server process to do some work.
That way you have a whole bunch of light processes serving the static stuff, and fewer heavy processes. Once the heavy process is done, and hands it's output back to the light process, it is free to work for another light process, while the first light process deals with network transfer back to the client.
Or did I miss another memo?
Len.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
