Danke, Andreas
--On 28. November 2005 14:05:22 +0100 Gerhard Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +0000, 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 no problem on low load. But with growing > load, this > can become a Problem. Well, it's not "a way to do it", it's *the* way.Thats a real good argument. There is no *the* way. Every situation is different and having as mutch possibilities as possible is allways the best way to do it.I highly doubt that your assertion about using more connections than just one is a problem, under any circumstance. All very large production sites that I ever dealt with use mod_rewrite/mod_proxy. It simply is not a problem. Or do you have proof?Im runnig a very large site with 40000 users and a peak arround 60 Requests per second. Having to call connect end all the routines that come with it is quite an increased load. Why. FastCGI work perfectly and efficiently. Thats exactly the usecase Fastcgi was developed for. In none of the Postings is an reason why FastCGI ist bad and therefore not supported in the future. Just to say "so it is" is not an Answer. So my question is still there. Bye Estartu ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Gerhard Schmidt | Nick : estartu IRC : Estartu | Fischbachweg 3 | | PGP Public Key 86856 Hiltenfingen | EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | on request Germany | |
pgpBlgWqyNx6l.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
