Toby Corkindale wrote: > Daniel McBrearty wrote: >> I thought of using fcgi also, but wondered if the fact that lighty >> doesn't make the fcgi connection persistent was significant. > > Are you sure? It looked persistent to me. > >> On 3/15/07, Michele Beltrame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I'm about to deploy an application, and this time I can choose to use >>> Lightpd instead of Apache+fcgid, which I commonly use. I have no problem >>> with >>> the latter configuration, but I was wondering if someone has >>> comments/experience >>> about Lighttpd for running Catalyst applications, i.e. speed, memory >>> footprint, etc... > > I swapped over to lighttpd and am currently impressed - it seems to > perform better than Apache under high numbers of concurrent connections > due to its non-forking architecture. > ie. Where apache would spawn more and more processes, chew loads of > memory, and then hit MaxClients and stop accepting connections, Lighttpd > seems to keep on truckin' and queuing them up.
I'm itching to try it out. From all that I've heard, Lighttpd is the way to go from things like Cat when Apache is just too heavy.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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/
