Re: [Catalyst] Lighttpd and mod_perlite
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 09:19:32PM +0200, Kiffin Gish wrote: Just wondering what kind of experience folks in the catalyst community have had using lighttpd/mod_perlite as replacements for the more widely accepted apache/mod_perl stack. While apache might be better in being proven technology and mod_perl being better documented, I'm still looking for lightweight and scalable options. Shadowcat's clients tend to end up on $webserver + FastCGI or $proxy + Prefork depending on their requirements. mod_perl is more 'legacy' than 'accepted' to people using practices from this century. -- Matt S Trout Catalyst and DBIx::Class consultancy with a clue Technical Director and a commit bit: http://shadowcat.co.uk/catalyst/ Shadowcat Systems Limited mst (@) shadowcat.co.ukhttp://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Lighttpd and mod_perlite
If you can, please suggest some links for reference.:) thanks Regards, Gordon Yeong 2009/6/1 Nigel Metheringham nigel.methering...@dev.intechnology.co.uk However, I, and many others, are using lighttpd with fastcgi with great success - there are a number of articles on this including a few advent calendar ones. Nigel. ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Lighttpd and mod_perlite
Just wondering what kind of experience folks in the catalyst community have had using lighttpd/mod_perlite as replacements for the more widely accepted apache/mod_perl stack. While apache might be better in being proven technology and mod_perl being better documented, I'm still looking for lightweight and scalable options. -- Kiffin Gish kiffin.g...@planet.nl Gouda, The Netherlands ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Lighttpd and mod_perlite
On 31 May 2009, at 20:19, Kiffin Gish wrote: Just wondering what kind of experience folks in the catalyst community have had using lighttpd/mod_perlite as replacements for the more widely accepted apache/mod_perl stack. While apache might be better in being proven technology and mod_perl being better documented, I'm still looking for lightweight and scalable options. Not one of I had heard of up until now, and a quick google make it look a little bleeding edge for my taste. However, I, and many others, are using lighttpd with fastcgi with great success - there are a number of articles on this including a few advent calendar ones. Nigel. -- [ Nigel Metheringham nigel.methering...@intechnology.com ] [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ] ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Lighttpd and mod_perlite
On 31 May 2009, at 20:19, Kiffin Gish wrote: Just wondering what kind of experience folks in the catalyst community have had using lighttpd/mod_perlite as replacements for the more widely accepted apache/mod_perl stack. While apache might be better in being proven technology and mod_perl being better documented, I'm still looking for lightweight and scalable options. I guess I'd wonder kind of lightweight you want, catalyst+perl isn't a very lightweight solution in and of itself, I'd say, as a result of all the dependencies Catalyst has. However, lightppd+fastcgi with the fastcgi catalyst server is the usual answer for this requirement. For me, the most appealing characteristic of this arrangment was merely the complete decoupling of the front and back ends. I didn't notice a big difference in memory footprint between a mod_perl apache and the fastcgi catalyst server, so I'm assuming that the application specific memory usage is more important than anything mod_perl drags in. On the other hand, you can get the same decoupling with a minimal apache binary on the frontend and a modperl-only apache on the backend, with near zero configuration as I still prefer the apache URL rewriting syntax to lighttpd and I find the apache documentation more useful. Doing anything even a little bit unusual with lighttpd always seems to involve documentation pages that seem a bit light or incomplete. - Mark ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
