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

Perrin Harkins perrin at elem.com
Tue Mar 28 00:55:01 CEST 2006

On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 19:40 -0300, Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior
> It's easier to cap the resources a
> FastCGI application uses without resorting to having an Apache process
> per user.

In a situation where you have enough traffic to be concerned about this,
you'd probably run a separate server for static files.  You'd be able to
set resource limits for mod_perl, and/or run it as a separate user.  I'm
guessing it's more setup work with mod_perl though, if you're not
familiar with mod_proxy already.

> You can kill a FastCGI application which is misbehaving
> while you'd have to kill Apache for mod_perl support.

Does it just queue the current users while it spawns new processes?

> And FastCGI can
> run under lighttpd besides Apache.

Yes, that's a nice feature, and in theory it can even be used by people
who are stuck with IIS, although I couldn't find a working binary for
that when I tried a few years back.  Maybe the new interest from Rails
has improved that.

- Perrin

More information about the Catalyst mailing list