On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 22:33, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: > On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 17:53, Paul Makepeace wrote: > > > Has anyone else used FCGI recently? (I heard it was a bit shabby in > > yonder days.) In particular what situations is mod_perl a real win, and > > worth putting up with the pain? > > Did goole not find the paper wot I wrote for Emap? > > http://www.hodgkinson.org/comparison.html
erm.. <neck out> I don't agree with the original statement that programming for FastCGI is intrinsically easier than mod_perl (and anyway: who uses vanilla mod_perl?). But... Nice article, but doesn't really answer the question, which is: is FastCGI as scalable as mod_perl? Has anyone actually done any benchmarks, are there any numbers? Let's not mess about, our victim (says he) needs 300 page views a second. This isn't a matter of opinion here, this is solid number territory. Give the man something useful to chew on. </neck out> Mind you he hasn't said how big the pages are. I would just like to remind our viewers that 100Mb / sec / 300 = 33 Kbytes. This is a bit erm... small in modern HTML usage and also takes no account of boring things like latency, processing overhead, collisions, speed of the internet in general etc etc etc. I am still old, so don't hit me too hard. Dirk
