John Goulah wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008 5:05 AM, Ian Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
I would just like to canvas opinion on a good development environment
and practices for Catalyst since we are starting to have some
performance issues.
<snip>
Why wouldn't you just use the standalone server bundled with
Catalyst? Fcgi is great for production, but the processes are fairly
thick memory wise, so having instances for each developer could be an
issue. We use the cat server for development and works fine for
about 5-10 people at any given time on a modest box (4G ram)
Good point and my reasons are not clear now :) mainly because when I
originally tried this I had conflicts between the URI served by apache
and the one served by catalyst. Having tried this tonight I see where I
was going wrong and I can easily set this up. So, I will try it this way
for a few days to see how it goes. Thanks.
The other reason was that I eventually was hoping to serve several
clients from the same machine, running multiple copies of the same
application (but perhaps different versions) and knew I could not do
this with Apache mod-perl but could do so with fast-cgi, hence my reason
for going down that path.
I suppose however that from this experience it would not be a good idea
to try and serve several fast-cgi Catalyst applications from the same
server?
Could we have problems in the performance of our application.
Should we
start thinking about profiling it to see where the time is going? (If
so, are there any pointers on how best to do this?)
As mentioned, the catalyst server gives you a lot of good numbers to
measure performance.
Good luck,
John
Thanks, I will give that a try as well even if the server performance
improves.
_______________________________________________
List: [email protected]
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
