Yes, Alex, we already talked about this in the mentioned thread.
Well, Perl professionals, who I trust, says mod_perl is broken. You say the opposite.
I don't judge anybody, since I don't know enough about mod_perl. But if some professional programmers are convinced that mod_perl is broken, I will ask myself, which one is better to choose?
The mod_perl which may have problems, or FastCGI which is recommended by everybody?
Performance of mod_perl and FastCGI is almost the same (FastCGI has only a bit faster performance).
Comparison of Portable Dynamic Web Content Technologies for the Apache Server:
http://www.dmst.aueb.gr/...nt/html/dyncont.html (Well, except SpeedyCGI, which has about 30% performance difference)
A light comparison of SpeedyCGI vs mod_perl & FastCGI (pros & cons by developer of SpeedyCGI, Sam Horrocks, presented in 2001 at YAPC North America):
A light comparison of SpeedyCGI vs mod_perl & FastCGI Some further comments: - I'm on shared virtual webserver, where mod_perl is not likely will be installed.
- Alex, you said SpeedyCGI is not supported on Windows. However I do my developments under Windows. So I have no other choice than mod_perl. There is no alternative, no choice for me at the moment.
- FastCGI has Windows support (unlike SpeedyCGI)
- FastCGI must be wrapped into a loop. SpeedyCGI not. But SpeedyCGI doesn't have Windows support. So which is better for me??? IMHO, the one it's at least possible to use under Win, FastCGI
- Alex, thanks to your fine development technique, wrapping content of page.cgi and other cgi files should be a breeze. Yes, of course in the main code there FastCGI should be also supported, so maybe there may be need some changes, too (if there would be need any).
Ease of use: - both mod_perl & FastCGI needs special setups. mod_perl is not likely that will be installed on shared virtual servers...
- SpeedyCGI is nice, but has no Windows support (shooting off).
Cross platform: mod_perl: good
FastCGI: fair (I saw there are still bugs & problems under Windows, but there is at least support for Windows)
SpeedyCGI: no Windows support at all (planned for future...)
Safety: I'm not convinced about mod_perl safety. And even if it's made safe doesn't mean performance decrease?
FastCGI is safe anyway as far as I know.
Speed: While there is not very big performance difference, the top list is:
1) FastCGI (just a bit over mod_perl)
2) mod_perl (this is 100% reference for SpeedyCGI comparison)
3) SpeedyCGI (70% compared to mod_perl). That's 30% difference.
Comparison of speedycgi and mod_perl is here (directly from SpeedyCGI website):
http://daemoninc.com/SpeedyCGI/benchmarks/ PApp::CGI (using
speedycgi):
21 hits/s PApp::Apache (native
mod_perl):
30 hits/s Finally, Google results for keyword
"fastcgi" 189,000 hits. For keyword
"speedycgi" there are only 6,380 hits.
That seems 29 times more hits for FastCGI...
For which one I can get more support on the net, if I have problems? FastCGI or SpeedyCGI?
So please Alex, don't say me ouch... I hate this.
If there would be Win32 version of SpeedyCGI I would be satisfied with it. But until there is NO Win32 support, I will stand by supporting the FastCGI support for Links SQL.
Best regards,
Webmaster33
Paid Support from Webmaster33. Expert in Perl programming & Gossamer Threads applications. (click here for prices)
Webmaster33's products (upd.2004.09.26) | Private message | Contact me | Was my post helpful? Donate my help...