[Catalyst] Lighttpd and mod_perlite

[Mark Blackman]

On 31 May 2009, at 20:19, Kiffin Gish wrote:

> Just wondering what kind of experience folks in the catalyst community
> have had using lighttpd/mod_perlite as replacements for the more  
> widely
> accepted apache/mod_perl stack. While apache might be better in being
> proven technology and mod_perl being better documented, I'm still
> looking for lightweight and scalable options.

I guess I'd wonder kind of lightweight you want, catalyst+perl
isn't a very lightweight solution in and of itself, I'd say, as
a result of all the dependencies Catalyst has.

However, lightppd+fastcgi with the fastcgi catalyst server
is the usual answer for this requirement. For me, the most
appealing characteristic of this arrangment was merely the
complete decoupling of the front and back ends. I didn't
notice a big difference in memory footprint between a mod_perl
apache and the fastcgi catalyst server, so I'm assuming
that the application specific memory usage is more important
than anything mod_perl drags in.

On the other hand, you can get the same decoupling with
a minimal apache binary on the frontend and a modperl-only
apache on the backend, with near zero configuration as I still
prefer the apache URL rewriting syntax to lighttpd and I
find the apache documentation more useful. Doing anything
even a little bit unusual with lighttpd always seems to involve
documentation pages that seem a bit light or incomplete.

- Mark