I'd pose that the 2 would probably wash [speed-wise.] It's true that Apache needs to create children for each PHP call, that's overhead, but that overhead is diminished when looking at the juggling act that will happen with fastCGI.
If you wanna improve performance, I'd suggest that you move to a light-weight web server like lighttpd rather than Apache. That's gonna give ya a boost! :) -Jim/Thinbegin On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Jordan Schatz <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey All, > > I am looking for an authoritative answer to which is faster, mod_fastCGI > or mod_php? as with most performance questions everyone seems to have a > different answer (when I googled it)... As I understand it, for Apache to > handle an additional request with mod_php it has to create a child thread > with the entire Apache and mod_php environment, so there is alot of > overhead, whereas with fastCGI Apache can make an additional request to > the existing fastCGI connection, thereby saving the overhead. But isn't > it a limitation of Apache that it cant send multiple requests through a > single connection? So wouldn't it be creating an additional apache child + > mod_fastCGI which then calls PHP for each connection? Anyway I'm not > seeing the performance gain, but don't know if I have things setup right. > > What would be a good way to increase performance of a large number of > simultaneous requests, all requesting small amounts of dynamically > generated content? (think lots of AJAX : ) > > Thanks! > > > > _______________________________________________ > > UPHPU mailing list > [email protected] > http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu > IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net > _______________________________________________ UPHPU mailing list [email protected] http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net
