Hi,
>>So I'm looking for an alternative mod_perl, and the two options seem
to be
>>FastCGI and Persistent Perl. Is there any reason to use one over the
other?
>>Have anyone used both, and has come to a conclusion about which is
best for
>>a C::A app?
I have not used Persistent Perl, but FastCGI is quite stable in my
experience.
The only problem I had was with the dynamic FastCGI process manager,
that would sometimes (say once a month) terminate all servers and not
bring them up again (Apache restart would fix that, and the problem does
not seem to occur with a static process manager).
I expect that they're all going to experience the same memory situation. They
all operation on basically the same idea. (Though if anyone out there has a
different perspective then I'd love to hear it. mod_perl is the only one of
them I have extensive experience with.)
I think a big difference is that while you may need 50 httpd processes,
you most likely need much less FastCGI processes, so that it does not
matter that much if those three or four processes use a lot of memory.
Another big difference is that FastCGI runs outside of the Apache
process and cannot bring Apache down. If you have more than one FastCGI
application, they are also separate from eachother.
So even if an coding error or runtime error causes one application to
run amok, the others (and the site as a whole) may still continue to
operate.
Don't forget that, when you look at your Apache children's memory usage, much of
the memory-bloat is shared so it's not really as bad as it looks at first.
I have heard, though, that Perl's memory pages have a tendency to become
"unshared" after some time.
Cheers,
Thilo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
