[Catalyst] Apache2+fcgid or Lighttpd

[Daniel McBrearty]

no, I'm wrong - I read it *somewhere*, but it was likely an out of
date doc ... I just googled and found this:

http://blog.lighttpd.net/articles/2006/11/29/faster-fastcgi

(scroll down or search "romauld" to see that it's persistent since 1.5.0)


On 3/19/07, Toby Corkindale <toby at ymogen.net> wrote:
> Daniel McBrearty wrote:
> > I thought of using fcgi also, but wondered if the fact that lighty
> > doesn't make the fcgi connection persistent was significant.
>
> Are you sure? It looked persistent to me.
>
> > On 3/15/07, Michele Beltrame <mb at italpro.net> wrote:
> >> I'm about to deploy an application, and this time I can choose to use
> >> Lightpd instead of Apache+fcgid, which I commonly use. I have no problem with
> >> the latter configuration, but I was wondering if someone has comments/experience
> >> about Lighttpd for running Catalyst applications, i.e. speed, memory
> >> footprint, etc...
>
> I swapped over to lighttpd and am currently impressed - it seems to
> perform better than Apache under high numbers of concurrent connections
> due to its non-forking architecture.
> ie. Where apache would spawn more and more processes, chew loads of
> memory, and then hit MaxClients and stop accepting connections, Lighttpd
> seems to keep on truckin' and queuing them up.
>
>
> Toby
>
> _______________________________________________
> List: Catalyst at lists.rawmode.org
> Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
> Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/
> Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
>


-- 
Daniel McBrearty
email : danielmcbrearty at gmail.com
www.engoi.com : the multi - language vocab trainer
BTW : 0873928131