[Catalyst] OT: mod_fastcgi vs. mod_perl (was uri_for() question)

Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior acid06 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 28 01:00:17 CEST 2006

On 3/27/06, Perrin Harkins <perrin at elem.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 19:40 -0300, Nilson Santos Figueiredo Junior
> wrote:
> > It's easier to cap the resources a
> > FastCGI application uses without resorting to having an Apache process
> > per user.
> In a situation where you have enough traffic to be concerned about this,
> you'd probably run a separate server for static files.  You'd be able to
> set resource limits for mod_perl, and/or run it as a separate user.  I'm
> guessing it's more setup work with mod_perl though, if you're not
> familiar with mod_proxy already.

Well... I'm not really talking about the end-users but about the
shared hosting company which wants to offer some sort of application
persistence. FastCGI is much more manageable than mod_perl from this
POV. With FastCGI you wouldn't need another Apache running, that's the

-Nilson Santos F. Jr.

More information about the Catalyst mailing list