This is a discussion on Re: mod_perl survey results - modperl ; ----- Original Message ----- 2:49 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: >> 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 ...
----- Original Message ----- 2:49 PM, David E. Wheeler
>> 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
>> and many are easy to use and extremely fast. If all you're interested in
>> serving a Rails or Catalyst app, Apache/mod_perl starts to seem like much
>> too big a beast.
> 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 prefer to use mod_perl, but this especially because it works under both
Linux and Windows and I need to develop the apps under Windows before using
them under Linux.
However, I've seen that many Catalyst developers prefer to use fastcgi and
not mod_perl, because when using fastcgi, the applications can be restarted
without restarting the whole web server.
Too bad that fastcgi is harder to install than mod_perl or fcgid...
From the perspective of the number of users, mod_perl is usually used by
those who have root access and it is not used for shared hosting. Of course
the number of users is not big, but the importance of those users is bigger.