Another mod_perl user here! I've looked at FastCGI, but ongoing management
has always looked to be more complecated than just altering the apache
config.
We have a multi-server setup with hardware load-balancers. They balance
between two threaded apache servers which serve all static files and
Hi,
I'm quite happy with nginx load-balancing in front on FastCGI servers - it
handles node failures gracefully by just hopping to the next one.
--
Nothing is ever easy
___
List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk
Listinfo:
to
identify the best better
option.
Amit
--- On Sat, 30/1/10, Adam Mackler nab...@mackler.org wrote:
From: Adam Mackler nab...@mackler.org
Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Using Catalyst with mod_per or FastCGI on heavy traffic
web application
To: shanu_...@yahoo.co.in, The elegant MVC web
Excerpts from xenoterrac...@gmail.com's message of Fri Jan 29 22:36:53 -0500
2010:
Hmm. Perhaps i misunderstand the concept. I was thinking there was the third
option of using a psgi server or mod psgi
I didn't see any reference to either, but it doesn't matter; comparing either
of those as
hdp.perl.catalyst.us...@weftsoar.net
Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Using Catalyst with mod_per or FastCGI on heavy traffic
web application
Excerpts from xenoterrac...@gmail.com's message of Fri Jan 29 22:36:53 -0500
2010:
Hmm. Perhaps i misunderstand the concept. I was thinking there was the third
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Adam Mackler nab...@mackler.org wrote:
But with mod_perl, when you're restarting your application, you're
starting the whole web server, so during that time...which can be
longer than you expect for a number of reasons...people attempting to
reach your site
Does anyone have any advice on what will the best option mod_perl or FastCGI or
something else. if I have the following development/production environment for
my web application which is a search engine.
1. Linux(RHEL5)
2. Apache 2.2.x
3. Perl 5.10
4. mod_perl 2.0.x
5. mysql 5.1.x
6. Catalyst
Well, I'm sure no expert, but that doesn't stop me from having opinions.
The reasons I stopped using mod_perl are: safer when perl encounters
errors, easier for learning, easier for development, better error
messages when restarting production applications, and the ability to
have each
Enlightening how do you feel about fastcgi vs psgi?
___
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:
Excerpts from xenoterrac...@gmail.com's message of Fri Jan 29 20:22:48 -0500
2010:
Enlightening how do you feel about fastcgi vs psgi?
This question makes no sense. How do you feel about HTML vs. HTTP?
PSGI is an interface for Perl code. FastCGI is an interface for network
communications.
Just so it's not one-sided, I moved from FastCGI to mod_perl some years
back. Start up and restart time was one issue, IIRC, but mod_perl was
trivial to configure and solved stability issues we were seeing. I never
went back, so maybe it's better now. Is there now a manager that will spawn
more
Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Using Catalyst with mod_per or FastCGI on heavy traffic
web application
Excerpts from xenoterrac...@gmail.com's message of Fri Jan 29 20:22:48 -0500
2010:
Enlightening how do you feel about fastcgi vs psgi?
This question makes no sense. How do you feel about HTML vs. HTTP
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 06:14:09PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
I don't really see how what server you use effects error messages. Stderr
is stderr. I would never use the canned Apache error responses anyway for
a site.
--
Bill Moseley
Oops, I see did not explain that point clearly.
By
13 matches
Mail list logo
