On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
>
> Are you comparing that to mod_perl with a proxy server in front of it?
> That is the equivalent architecture. If you remove the proxy,
> mod_perl becomes faster but the scalability suffers. I wouldn't
> recommend anyone run mod_perl
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Phil Van wrote:
> Interesting those are mod_fcgid + CGI, compared to plain Apache +
> mod_perl + libapeq ?
There are a number of modules like CGI and libapreq that run in
multiple environments. My benchmark was a Catalyst app that just
returned about 30K of H
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Phil Van wrote:
> > One should really try mod_fcgid + perl application. that is lighter,
> faster,
> > and more stable.
>
> FastCGI works fine, but these claims are not true. I benchmarked
> several FastC
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Phil Van wrote:
> One should really try mod_fcgid + perl application. that is lighter, faster,
> and more stable.
FastCGI works fine, but these claims are not true. I benchmarked
several FastCGI environments and none of them were significantly
faster than mod_pe
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Phil Van wrote:
> One should really try mod_fcgid + perl application. that is lighter, faster,
> and more stable.
> mod_fcgid provides also authenticate/authorize/access controls, besides
> dynamical content.
> These are probably all you want to get from mod_perl.
