Hi Daishi, On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Daishi Kato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Graham Fawcett wrote:
> > Sure. My first version was an SCGI server, but later I switched to > > HTTP. I usually host behind Apache, and moving from mod_scgi to > > mod_proxy was pretty straightforward, and in return it's much easier > > to test when Apache isn't running. I also like that using HTTP as the > > only protocol means that you can deploy apps in small-scale, > > standalone situations (e.g. "localhost" workstation apps). > I'm also curious on this for I'm now running a HTTP server > and thinking to change it to an SCGI server (using web-unity). > Is the performance technically the same in these cases? SCGI performs very well. It is hard to find performance differences between mod_scgi and mod_proxy performance. (I also used a custom SCGI handler, so I can't speak for or against the current scgi egg.) > Also, do mod_scgi and mod_proxy handle long-lived connections > (a.k.a. COMET connections) very well? Hm, good question. My guess is that they would both work, but I haven't tried that. SCGI responses are closely based on the CGI model: you print a 'Status: 200 OK' followed by your headers, and then write out the response body. I believe that Apache / lighttpd will just proxy your response stream back to the client. Note that the SCGI protocol uses connections only once: SCGI is not keepalive. But Apache can maintain keepalive connections with your clients and simply use multiple SCGI connections to complete the work. Some testing would be a good idea. You might also want to confirm that your front-end Web server is not configured to time-out on long-running connections. Best, Graham _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
