On 11/28/05, Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:09, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > > > > Nope. There's the old mod_fastcgi and the more up-to-date mod_fcgid > > > out there. Why does the world need another? > > > > But not in the official Apache distribution. > > How is that a problem?
It means the module is available on far less hosts. And with non-dedicated hosts that's a significant issue (I think). > > And not with a > > Debian/DFSG-free license. > > Huh? If debian has taken to rejecting the GPL, what do they have left? > Not the Linux or Hurd kernels, for starters. Oops, I assumed you referred to the one from http://fastcgi.com/ > > KeepAliveTimeout is 15 by default. I guess/think the majority of > > processes is idle during most (> 50%) of the time. I'm not sure, but > > don't these idle processes still consume a lot of memory and > > (persistent database connection) resources? > > Yep. Shifting that overhead to fastcgi doesn't get rid of it - unless Why not? Fastcgi isn't tied up during the keep alive idle time. > (as I suggested) the PHP is a small proportion of total traffic, so the > fastcgi can be a lot smaller than the main server. But then, the same > applies to proxying another Apache instance. > > > A separate process would also allow you to run PHP with other user IDs > > and process priorities/privileges and provide fault isolation (apache > > process/connection doesn't crash when PHP does). > > Sounds like fastcgi will suit you nicely. I still don't see the problem. No problem indeed if fastcgi is being used. I thought you were arguing for just using the prefork mpm. > (BTW, I sent the mod_fcgid maintainer a patch to build cleanly with > Apache 2.1.8/9 a few weeks ago. Hopefully he'll review and apply it). > > > > running PHP as CGI, under fastcgi, or on a separate server instance > > > running with prefork and proxied by the primary server? > > > > PHP as CGI causes too much overhead I think. > > That would depend on the volume of PHP usage. Of course.
