Re: [Catalyst] Apache2+fcgid or Lighttpd
On 3/19/07, Toby Corkindale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ie. Where apache would spawn more and more processes, chew loads of memory, and then hit MaxClients and stop accepting connections Incidentally, apache doesn't stop accepting connection when it hits MaxClients. It just stops spawning processes. The rest of the connections get accepted and queued up to a configurable limit. See http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mpm_common.html#maxclients - Perrin ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Apache2+fcgid or Lighttpd
no, I'm wrong - I read it *somewhere*, but it was likely an out of date doc ... I just googled and found this: http://blog.lighttpd.net/articles/2006/11/29/faster-fastcgi (scroll down or search "romauld" to see that it's persistent since 1.5.0) On 3/19/07, Toby Corkindale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Daniel McBrearty wrote: > I thought of using fcgi also, but wondered if the fact that lighty > doesn't make the fcgi connection persistent was significant. Are you sure? It looked persistent to me. > On 3/15/07, Michele Beltrame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm about to deploy an application, and this time I can choose to use >> Lightpd instead of Apache+fcgid, which I commonly use. I have no problem with >> the latter configuration, but I was wondering if someone has comments/experience >> about Lighttpd for running Catalyst applications, i.e. speed, memory >> footprint, etc... I swapped over to lighttpd and am currently impressed - it seems to perform better than Apache under high numbers of concurrent connections due to its non-forking architecture. ie. Where apache would spawn more and more processes, chew loads of memory, and then hit MaxClients and stop accepting connections, Lighttpd seems to keep on truckin' and queuing them up. Toby ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ -- Daniel McBrearty email : danielmcbrearty at gmail.com www.engoi.com : the multi - language vocab trainer BTW : 0873928131 ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Apache2+fcgid or Lighttpd
Toby Corkindale wrote: > Daniel McBrearty wrote: >> I thought of using fcgi also, but wondered if the fact that lighty >> doesn't make the fcgi connection persistent was significant. > > Are you sure? It looked persistent to me. > >> On 3/15/07, Michele Beltrame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I'm about to deploy an application, and this time I can choose to use >>> Lightpd instead of Apache+fcgid, which I commonly use. I have no problem >>> with >>> the latter configuration, but I was wondering if someone has >>> comments/experience >>> about Lighttpd for running Catalyst applications, i.e. speed, memory >>> footprint, etc... > > I swapped over to lighttpd and am currently impressed - it seems to > perform better than Apache under high numbers of concurrent connections > due to its non-forking architecture. > ie. Where apache would spawn more and more processes, chew loads of > memory, and then hit MaxClients and stop accepting connections, Lighttpd > seems to keep on truckin' and queuing them up. I'm itching to try it out. From all that I've heard, Lighttpd is the way to go from things like Cat when Apache is just too heavy. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Apache2+fcgid or Lighttpd
Daniel McBrearty wrote: > I thought of using fcgi also, but wondered if the fact that lighty > doesn't make the fcgi connection persistent was significant. Are you sure? It looked persistent to me. > On 3/15/07, Michele Beltrame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm about to deploy an application, and this time I can choose to use >> Lightpd instead of Apache+fcgid, which I commonly use. I have no problem with >> the latter configuration, but I was wondering if someone has >> comments/experience >> about Lighttpd for running Catalyst applications, i.e. speed, memory >> footprint, etc... I swapped over to lighttpd and am currently impressed - it seems to perform better than Apache under high numbers of concurrent connections due to its non-forking architecture. ie. Where apache would spawn more and more processes, chew loads of memory, and then hit MaxClients and stop accepting connections, Lighttpd seems to keep on truckin' and queuing them up. Toby ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Apache2+fcgid or Lighttpd
I thought of using fcgi also, but wondered if the fact that lighty doesn't make the fcgi connection persistent was significant. On 3/15/07, Michele Beltrame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello! I'm about to deploy an application, and this time I can choose to use Lightpd instead of Apache+fcgid, which I commonly use. I have no problem with the latter configuration, but I was wondering if someone has comments/experience about Lighttpd for running Catalyst applications, i.e. speed, memory footprint, etc... I'm on a VPS environment, so speed can be an import factor for choice. Thanks, Michele. ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ -- Daniel McBrearty email : danielmcbrearty at gmail.com www.engoi.com : the multi - language vocab trainer BTW : 0873928131 ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Apache2+fcgid or Lighttpd
Hello! I'm about to deploy an application, and this time I can choose to use Lightpd instead of Apache+fcgid, which I commonly use. I have no problem with the latter configuration, but I was wondering if someone has comments/experience about Lighttpd for running Catalyst applications, i.e. speed, memory footprint, etc... I'm on a VPS environment, so speed can be an import factor for choice. Thanks, Michele. ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
