Vladimir Panteleev wrote: > But if your website is getting enough hits to generate more > requests than the server can process, technology choice matters a > lot.
Yeah. I've never had that happen, so I don't really know. If it happens, it's easy enough to change later. (it was a two line change just now to switch it to built-in webserver - none of the actual app code needs to change at all) > Is there any reason you didn't go for FastCGI or SCGI? The biggest reason is they are harder to implement, and it's premature optimization. I didn't want to spend a lot of extra time writing code that would never be needed! Secondary benefits are simplicity and reliability. A CGI process can segfault without affecting anyone else. It can go completely wild on memory, and it doesn't matter because it's short-lived anyway. It can deployed to any server with ease - just copy the binary in there. Worst case, you add a couple lines to .htaccess. Apache (or IIS) also handles logging and other details for a CGI program. It's just simpler in a lot of ways.
