httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Kew <n...@webthing.com>
Subject Re: Any 'official' Apache FastCGI-like alternative planned?
Date Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:29:41 GMT
On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:09, Olaf van der Spek wrote:

> > Nope.  There's the old mod_fastcgi and the more up-to-date mod_fcgid
> > out there.  Why does the world need another?
>
> But not in the official Apache distribution.

How is that a problem?

> And not with a 
> Debian/DFSG-free license.

Huh?  If debian has taken to rejecting the GPL, what do they have left?
Not the Linux or Hurd kernels, for starters.

> KeepAliveTimeout is 15 by default. I guess/think the majority of
> processes is idle during most (> 50%) of the time. I'm not sure, but
> don't these idle processes still consume a lot of memory and
> (persistent database connection) resources?

Yep.  Shifting that overhead to fastcgi doesn't get rid of it - unless
(as I suggested) the PHP is a small proportion of total traffic, so the
fastcgi can be a lot smaller than the main server.  But then, the same
applies to proxying another Apache instance.

> A separate process would also allow you to run PHP with other user IDs
> and process priorities/privileges and provide fault isolation (apache
> process/connection doesn't crash when PHP does).

Sounds like fastcgi will suit you nicely.  I still don't see the problem.

(BTW, I sent the mod_fcgid maintainer a patch to build cleanly with
Apache 2.1.8/9 a few weeks ago.  Hopefully he'll review and apply it).

> > running PHP as CGI, under fastcgi, or on a separate server instance
> > running with prefork and proxied by the primary server?
>
> PHP as CGI causes too much overhead I think.

That would depend on the volume of PHP usage.

-- 
Nick Kew

Mime
View raw message