[Catalyst] OT: mod_fastcgi vs. mod_perl (was uri_for() question)

[Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior]

On 3/27/06, Perrin Harkins <perrin at elem.com> wrote:
> Hmmm, doesn't FastCGI (or any persistent Perl environment) have the
> exact same issues?  The only obvious difference in memory footprint
> would be if you were trying to handle static files from your mod_perl
> server, which is not a recommended configuration.  (A separate image
> server or a reverse proxy server is preferred for that.)

While mod_perl runs inside the Apache process, FastCGI is an external,
isolated process for each script. It's easier to cap the resources a
FastCGI application uses without resorting to having an Apache process
per user. You can kill a FastCGI application which is misbehaving
while you'd have to kill Apache for mod_perl support. And FastCGI can
run under lighttpd besides Apache.

But if you really need the Apache integration that mod_perl offers,
then FastCGI is not for you.

All that being said, I've never really used FastCGI (I couldn't manage
to make it work here in my Windows box).

-Nilson Santos F. Jr.