On 4/20/06 11:07 AM, “Marston Alfred” [email protected] wrote:
So is Mongrel an alternative to FastCGI? If so how do they compare
in speed and resource usage to each other?
So far our experience has been that Mongrel performs as well or better
than
FastCGI, is more stable (no memory leaks so far), and is easier to
cluster
and manage since it’s HTTP based.
That being said, every application is different so you’ll want to test
both
if you have questions and choose the right solution for your needs. If
you
do choose FastCGI for some reason I’d love to hear your feedback.
Zed A. Shaw
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/
On 4/20/06 2:07 PM, “Matt W.” [email protected] wrote:
Since Lighty has FastCGI support baked in, in what case would you use Mongrel
instead of just using FCGI with Lighty? Would this primarily be of use if you
were using another webserver like Apache that’s known to have problematic FCGI
support? In the Apache case, I’m assuming that you would use Apache to proxy
directly to Mongrel instead of using Lighty as an intermediary between the
two… Is this correct?
If you’re married to lighttpd then there’s one caution related to
Mongrel:
the mod_proxy in lighttpd is broken. It has problems detecting that a
backend is down.
My more recent recommendation is for people to check out litespeed as an
alternative:
http://weblog.techno-weenie.net/2006/4/11/setting-up-litespeed-with-mongrel
Or, to point lighttpd at one port which runs balance and then let
balance
talk to all of the Mongrel servers. This option also works well for
Apache.
Zed A. Shaw
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/