Re: mod_perl survey results
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:49 PM, David E. Wheeler <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:[color=blue]
> To a certain degree, Apache/mod_perl is a victim of the success of HTTP.
> It's fairly easy to implement a new HTTP server, so there are a lot of them,
> and many are easy to use and extremely fast. If all you're interested in is
> serving a Rails or Catalyst app, Apache/mod_perl starts to seem like much
> too big a beast.[/color]
I've said this before, but I think this is not a very rational claim.
Network servers are actually pretty hard to get right and HTTP is no
longer very simple. More to the point, there's nothing "heavy" about
apache/mod_perl compared to other web servers + FastCGI. An
event-based server like Lighttpd will have better performance than
Apache 2's worker MPM (the recommended choice for front-end proxies)
on static files, but who has a bottleneck on static files these days?
I'm fine with people using other open source tools to get where they
want to go but the justifications they make about mod_perl being
heavier or slower rarely have any actual research behind them.
Hmm, this is making me want to run benchmarks! Maybe a solid set of
benchmarks would be a fun OSCON presentation next year.