Matt S Trout wrote: > fcgid is designed for shared hosting. it's basically useless for dedicated > setups. > >> I ask this, because it seems that it works better than fastcgi, it is >> maintained and prefered, but I can't see why. > > mod_fastcgi is maintained, just minimally and quietly, and it works > perfectly. > > For dedicated setups it's the only option; I dunno who you think prefers > fcgid but I'm certainly not one of them. >
Hmm, now I'm all confused. We'd recently switched to mod_fcgid from handling fastcgi with lighttpd, due to its better process management. However, I'm always akin to trying new things, so this piques my curiosity around mod_fastcgi. What's the general concensus in the catalyst community nowadays? Is mod_fastcgi preferred at large over mod_fcgid these days? I saw a post from Jonathan Rockaway almost two years ago noting that "mod_fastcgi is crufty and slightly broken, while mod_fcgid seems to be more sane", and keep seeing notes that fcgid is better maintained (but no idea how true that is). Two years is a long time, though, so I don't know what the current thought is. _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
