Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 66351 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2009 18:28:11 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Oct 2009 18:28:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 49294 invoked by uid 500); 30 Oct 2009 18:28:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 49215 invoked by uid 500); 30 Oct 2009 18:28:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 49206 invoked by uid 99); 30 Oct 2009 18:28:10 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:28:10 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [157.166.165.14] (HELO atlmail5.turner.com) (157.166.165.14) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:28:02 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppmprmsb [127.0.0.1]) by ppmprmsb.turner.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n9UINCsx004292 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:27:40 -0400 Received: from atlmec02.turner.com (Atlmec02.turner.com [10.189.200.32]) by ppmprmsb.turner.com with ESMTP id hr4hh0ss7-1 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:27:40 -0400 Received: from ATLVMX01.turner.com ([10.189.200.40]) by atlmec02.turner.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:27:40 -0400 Received: from 10.189.192.254 ([10.189.192.254]) by ATLVMX01.turner.com ([10.189.200.48]) via Exchange Front-End Server atlwebaccess.turner.com ([10.188.157.195]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:27:39 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.13.0.080930 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:27:38 -0400 Subject: Re: Fastcgi, use something like spawn-fcgi? From: "Akins, Brian" To: "dev@httpd.apache.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Fastcgi, use something like spawn-fcgi? Thread-Index: AcpZhqA5rm7WhFnNR7CmyRNaW38bewACAg+F In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2009 18:27:40.0116 (UTC) FILETIME=[A9B8A940:01CA598E] X-SPF-Result: pass X-SPF-Record: v=spf1 ip4:64.236.31.0/24 ip4:157.166.236.0/24 ip4:157.166.252.128/25 ip4:64.236.170.0/24 ip4:157.166.183.0/24 ip4:168.161.96.0/24 ip4:10.0.0.0/8 -all X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5,1.2.40,4.0.166 definitions=2009-10-30_12:2009-10-29,2009-10-30,2009-10-30 signatures=0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 10/30/09 1:29 PM, "Albert Lash" wrote: > But in the end, it is awesome for containing memory leaks and > automatically re-spawning fastcgi processes. An external process-manager can do the same. My point was "do we really want/need this complexity inside httpd?" Also, the config just seems so "clunky" compared to the proxy config. > In closing, I'll add that I'm greatly appreciative of both Apache and > mod_fcgid and was thrilled when I learned that mod_fcgid was getting > merged into the Apache code base. I was too, but mostly just because mod_fastcgi was horrible in my testing. -- Brian Akins