--On 28. November 2005 16:09:31 +0100 Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I've seen lots of heavy loaded Zope sites - I've not seen a single one
using FastCGI. Can you give us some number about the FastCGI performance
compared to the standard mod_rewrite approach? Let numbers
+---[ Andreas Jung ]--
|
| Effective from Zope 2.9 I marked FCGI as deprecated - both in the
| documentation and through a deprecation warning in the sources. Please note
| that it does not mean that the FCGI might go away automatically in the
| future. This is
Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
I pretty sure that mod_proxy is much better than pcgi was. But logic
tells me that it can't be better than fastcgi.
Well, you logic is apparently different from everyone elses ;-)
I'm with the everyone-else here, so quite whining about FCGI unless you
want to maintain
Hi,
I'm a little bit puzzled why there are growing Number of Mails telling
that the support for FastCGI will disappear in the future. Why is this.
I am running multiple sites that are hybrides of apache/php and zope. It's
very easy to set up such a config with mod fastcgi and Apache. It works
--On 28. November 2005 13:28:19 +0100 Gerhard Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
I'm a little bit puzzled why there are growing Number of Mails telling
that the support for FastCGI will disappear in the future. Why is this.
I am running multiple sites that are hybrides of apache/php and
On 28 Nov 2005, at 12:28, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
I know there is a way to do just the same with mod_proxy, but
mod_proxy does
open new connection for every request while fastcgi uses the same
connection
for all requests. The is no problem on low load. But with growing
load, this
can
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005, at 12:28, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
I know there is a way to do just the same with mod_proxy, but
mod_proxy does
open new connection for every request while fastcgi uses the same
connection
for all requests. The is
On 28 Nov 2005, at 13:05, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005, at 12:28, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
I know there is a way to do just the same with mod_proxy, but
mod_proxy does
open new connection for every request while fastcgi
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 01:07:49PM +, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005, at 13:05, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005, at 12:28, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
I know there is a way to do just the same with mod_proxy, but
On 28 Nov 2005, at 13:25, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
It's a matter of resources, plain and simple. No one has stepped
forward to support it, so it atrophied. If you think it's a great
thing to keep, volunteer.
I would if I had the time and the knowlege. But I don't see a Problem
with the Code
(Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 08:28:56AM -0500) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote/schrieb/egrapse:
From: Gerhard Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm a little bit puzzled why there are growing Number of Mails telling
that the support for FastCGI will disappear in the future. Why is this.
I am running multiple sites
Bitte schick das auf die Liste. Ich habe keine Lust solche Diskussionen
privat zu führen.
Danke,
Andreas
--On 28. November 2005 14:05:22 +0100 Gerhard Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005, at 12:28, Gerhard
--On 28. November 2005 13:28:20 + Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005, at 13:25, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
It's a matter of resources, plain and simple. No one has stepped
forward to support it, so it atrophied. If you think it's a great
thing to keep, volunteer.
I
On 28 Nov 2005, at 14:23, Andreas Jung wrote:
I agree. There should be one supported way to achive a goal. In the
past we had at least three methods to run Zope (fortunately we
kicked PCGI support
in the past). My suggestion is to deprecate FCGI officially in the
docs and through a
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 03:23:04PM +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 28. November 2005 13:28:20 + Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005, at 13:25, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
It's a matter of resources, plain and simple. No one has stepped
forward to support it, so it
On 28 Nov 2005, at 14:52, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
Sure I object. Why should perfectly working code be removed. There is
no alternativ for heavy loaded sites which need integration of apache
and zope. mod_proxy is no alternativ because it raises the load even
further.
Sorry, I have to call
--On 28. November 2005 15:52:25 +0100 Gerhard Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sure I object. Why should perfectly working code be removed. There is
no alternativ for heavy loaded sites which need integration of apache
and zope. mod_proxy is no alternativ because it raises the load even
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 04:29:22PM +0100, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
I don't have exakt numbers. We started with pcgi and had heavy problems
under load. They disapeared with the fastCGI module coming wird zope 2.6
i gues. I ve tried mod_proxy back than but had many problems. I can not
test on
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 11:06:35AM -0500, Paul Winkler wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 04:29:22PM +0100, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
I don't have exakt numbers. We started with pcgi and had heavy problems
under load. They disapeared with the fastCGI module coming wird zope 2.6
i gues. I ve tried
19 matches
Mail list logo
