On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Olaf van der Spek <olafvds...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> What advantages does fcgid have over proxy_fcgi (except being ready)? >> >> integrated, on-demand process management > > How valuable is that? > In most cases a static number of backends seems fine.
compared with mod_proxy_fcgi, the little or no required configuration/management of application processes with mod_fcgid makes it easier for newbies and/or casual users; at the same time it is sufficient for most sites, though perhaps with a little more config tweaking to allow higher spawn rates or larger pools per application > >>> mod_fcgid isn't in 2.2, right? >> >> mod_fcgid is actually not bundled with the HTTP server. It is >> released on its own cycle, and supports httpd 2.0.x, 2.2.x, and trunk >> (future httpd 2.4.x) with one delivery. > > Ah, nice. What's the reason it's not bundled though? I expect to see relatively high activity (compared with any particular bundled module) in mod_fcgid over the next 6 months or so. Given that, * bundling means considerable extra work to get fixes into both httpd trunk and the separate mod_fcgid tree that would continue to support httpd 2.0.x/2.2.x; that gets worse when httpd 2.4 is GA, as a fix could apply to httpd trunk, httpd 2.4.x branch, and the separate mod_fcgid tree * releasing of mod_fcgid fixes would be held up by the httpd release cycle > > In this case, I'd love to see support for TCP/IP backends too. > Shouldn't be too hard to implement. > >>> So what's the plan for 2.4? Have both of them? Or is mod_proxy_fcgi >>> expected to be not ready for 2.4? >> >> mod_fcgid will support 2.4. proxy-fcgi folk(s), care to speak up on your >> baby? > > Olaf >
