Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things

Re^4: Catalyst vs CGI::Application

by perrin (Chancellor)
on Oct 17, 2007 at 19:24 UTC ( #645563=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^3: Catalyst vs CGI::Application
in thread Catalyst vs CGI::Application

The process model of FastCGI and mod_perl with a fornt-end proxy are nearly identical, so I expect the memory footprint and scalability will be the same, unless the particular application is somehow able to take advantage of some special capability unique to one of these platforms.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Catalyst vs CGI::Application
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Oct 17, 2007 at 19:41 UTC
    The difference is that mod_perl requires Apache to be running and FCGI doesn't. Thus, you can scale FCGI onto an app server and leave Apache on the webserver while appservers for mod_perl require Apache to be running.

    My criteria for good software:
    1. Does it work?
    2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
      No, it's the same. FastCGI has some code that runs a daemon around your perl code. In mod_perl, apache is that daemon. When you run a front-end proxy, your proxy is the web server and the mod_perl server is nothing but a perl daemon, just like FastCGI.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://645563]
[LanX]: Hotfix seems to work properly, /me leaving details to erzuuli :)
[RonW]: that's good

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others imbibing at the Monastery: (8)
As of 2017-12-14 21:45 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    What programming language do you hate the most?

    Results (412 votes). Check out past polls.