The problem with that would be HP does not package mod_fastcgi and customers are always reluctant to change their existing scripts.
We tried the multi CGID approach and on multiple CPU machines, there was an improvement in performance. Regards, Kiran -----Original Message----- From: Ian Holsman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:54 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Question on multi-process CGID tackling this another way. how hard would it be to use something like mod_fastcgi of instead of the standard CGI interface? On 21/06/2006, at 8:00 AM, Paul Querna wrote: > Mendonce, Kiran (STSD) wrote: >> >> We tried using mod_cgi with worker. And its very slow. So that's not >> an option we have. Currently we have only worker MPM supported on >> HP-UX which is why I tried the multiple cgid approach. > > Ah. Now it makes sense. My experiences with this have only been on > Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris. It is very much a possibility that fork() > on HP-UX really sucks. > >> And the solution that was discussed then was also to provide multiple >> CGI daemons. Will this be a feature that will be available sometime ? > > I don't think anyone is currently working on it. Feel Free to post > patches :) > >> Also, I'd like to know if any benchmaking results for CGI has been >> published with comparisons between the different Apache MPMs. > > Never done it on HP-UX. On Linux 2.6 the experimental Event MPM is > fastest, then the Worker MPM and then the Prefork MPM. > > -Paul >