On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org > wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Michael Schnell wrote: > >> On 01/30/2015 08:46 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: >> >>> >>> Only if you use proxy fastcgi (i.e. a separately running binary >>> listening on a fixed port, not started in Apache), then threading may be >>> useful. >>> >>> Am I wrong thinking, that using "proxy FCGI" projects are a lot easier >> to manage, anyway, as here you can use normal debugging means (e.g. >> Lazarus) ? >> > > Not really. On windows they must be service programs, which are an > absolute horror to debug. > > And with a permanently running independent executable, you also can do a >> lot of stuff that might be difficult to accomplish with a program started >> and killed by the Server. >> > > Well, I switched from proxy fcgi to normal fastcgi for performance reasons. > It simply scales better. >
I think you should test your fcgi as proxy again after we implement the multi-thread support. A tool as AB, that simulate multiple requests per second, it will have a low performance in in currenty implementation of proxy fcgi, because when AB call a second request, for example, the first probably will be still processing, since the interval between requests in AB is too short. > With all the virtualization happening these days, introducing state on the > server is a very bad idea anyway, so I would not recommend this approach. > > As for debugging: it rarely happens that I must debug an actual running > fastcgi program. > All code is unit tested, and the unit tests run in a CLI program. > > The nice thing of web is that it is simply "text in, text out". Can > perfectly be simulated on the command-line. -- Silvio Clécio My public projects - github.com/silvioprog
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
