On 23 Aug 2004, at 13:52, Mark Powell wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004, Elliot F. wrote:
On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 08:50 -0400, John Peacock wrote:
How does speedycgi compare to pperl? Is pperl being used more as a
generic term for persistent perl processes? Speedycgi has worked
wonderfully for me (Debian Sarge 2.22-1) without any apparent problems.
However, most of the discussions I've seen tend to mention pperl rather
than speedycgi.
Just moved from PPerl to SpeedyCGI and AFAICT it seems ok. One thing I
have noticed is that SpeedyCGI keeps using the same PID numbers over and
over again. If I'm not mistaken (Matt?) PPerl didn't do this. It makes it
very difficult to examine just one smtp session. Previously is was easy
to:
$ grep ' <pid> ' /var/log/maillog | less
Now I can't do that. I previously used collapse log
(http://www.hjp.at/projekte/qpsmtpd/log-tools/) to collapse logs into
single lines for each qpsmtpd session, but this script now does not work
as it (of course) uses the pid.
PPerl tries *very* hard to emulate the calling process, including duplicating the pid. I don't think SpeedyCGI tries that hard.
Matt.
