[Catalyst] Development environments and performance

[Ian Docherty]

Wade.Stuart at fallon.com wrote:
> "John Goulah" <jgoulah at gmail.com> wrote on 01/16/2008 11:13:06 AM:
>
>   =

>>
>> Why wouldn't you just use the standalone server bundled with
>> Catalyst?  Fcgi is great for production, but the processes are
>> fairly thick memory wise, so having instances for each developer
>> could be an issue.   We use the cat server for development and works
>> fine for about 5-10 people at any given time on a modest box (4G ram)
>>     =

>
> Could be a massive assumption,  but usually when you go through the cost
> (time, cap) of building out a dev server environment you want it to mirror
> your production servers as much as possible so that you spend time
> squishing bugs that may exist in your production environment -- not some
> other different environment.  If they are using FCGI in prod it makes
> perfect sense to do so in dev.  Why battle bugs that may be introduced on
> the standalone server, or worse miss bugs that _do_ affect your production
> environment because you are developing on a different environment?
>   =

Yes that did go through my mind. The dev machine should be the same spec =

as the eventual live system
but as I have mentioned in other postings this was probably a fallacious =

reason for using fast-cgi.
> -Wade
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List: Catalyst at 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.u=
k/
> Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
>
>   =


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/catalyst/attachments/20080116/ee160=
067/attachment.htm