I was responding to the original poster and not anything you said, but I
can see how it could seem that way (since I used the term "virtual host"
incorrectly).
I was referring more to hosting providers that use apache virtual hosts
to serve your content. I should have said "shared hosting", and my
point was that if your shared hosting provider is decent (which is hard
to find, just by the nature of the business model) then you can get
pretty close to a decent catalyst environment without mod_perl.
I actually think something like linode is a really cool idea and I am
poking at their site right now. I haven't really looked around at other
hosts (or anything other than vanilla shared hosting) in years since my
host keeps me pretty happy. I think I would enjoy something like
linode, since I am really anal about how I like things configured and
would much prefer to deploy my own bits. I think I am just lucky in
that my shared hosting provider gets me pretty close to where I would
want things anyhow.
From your experience, how does the performance compare? Does getting
to run your own apache instance + mod_perl / persistent db connections
outweigh any performance hit from running inside a VM? Or is it just
leaps and bounds above shared hosting all around?
Danny
Thomas Hartman wrote:
I think we are talking past each other, or maybe I used the wrong word.
What I meant was, what you get with linode *appears* to be the same as
what you would get if you had your own server: root access, do
whatever you want.
But it's cheaper, and the performance isn't as good.
"I think most virtual hosts wouldn't support persistent connections or
mod_perl, just because it goes against the basic way that virtual hosts
are set up (needing access to the apache config itself, unique instance,
etc)."
_______________________________________________
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/
