FastCGI: Apache 1.x or 2 on new Debian System?

Rails
1

Hi,

I am just installing a new test environment, but this is just for
preparing the next one, which will be a production server.

I am doing a clean Debian Sarge 3.1 install with stable sources. I have
to decide if I install Apache 1.x or 2 now.

I have read that FastCGI is better supported/developed for Apache 1.x.
Is this (still) true? What is easier, more stable, etc? I want to run
rails with Apache/FastCGI then. (Or is there an even better solution
which I am not aware of?)

Any suggestions, experiences, hints?

Thank you!
Eric

2

On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 20:36 +0200, Eric B. wrote:

I am doing a clean Debian Sarge 3.1 install with stable sources. I have
to decide if I install Apache 1.x or 2 now.

I have read that FastCGI is better supported/developed for Apache 1.x.
Is this (still) true? What is easier, more stable, etc? I want to run
rails with Apache/FastCGI then. (Or is there an even better solution
which I am not aware of?)

I’ve been using Apache 1.3 + mod_fastcgi on our production Rails app:

Nary a problem. Using PostgreSQL as the backend. Good times!

Yours,

Tom
http://tomcopeland.blogs.com/

3

I’ve had nothing but smooth sailing with mod_fastcgi and apache 2.0.x. I
would not advise going straight to 2.2 because it broke some modules and
porters in the Linux and BSD worlds are still playing catch-up. If
you’re using debs, RPMs or some other form of package for your Apache
and modules, you may want to get the latest packages if there are any
newer than what went out with the distro. In my FreeBSD world, some
crucial patches that made mod_fastcgi build properly hit in January and
you may find something similar on Debian, since fastcgi module
maintenance got back in gear around that time.

If you’re planning on hosting an SVN server on the same box, Apache 2.0
is the obvious sensible choice because the SVN Apache modules require
2.x. It’s quite a bit easier to set up SVN clients talking to an
HTTP/HTTPS repository than it is the other ways involving ssh.

Eric B. wrote:

Hi,

I am just installing a new test environment, but this is just for
preparing the next one, which will be a production server.

I am doing a clean Debian Sarge 3.1 install with stable sources. I have
to decide if I install Apache 1.x or 2 now.

I have read that FastCGI is better supported/developed for Apache 1.x.
Is this (still) true? What is easier, more stable, etc? I want to run
rails with Apache/FastCGI then. (Or is there an even better solution
which I am not aware of?)

Any suggestions, experiences, hints?

Thank you!
Eric

4

On May 9, 2006, at 6:13 PM, Eric B. wrote:

Steve K. wrote:

I’ve had nothing but smooth sailing with mod_fastcgi and apache
2.0.x. …

Thank you. I decided to go to Apache 2 and leave Apache 1.x.

Should I use fcgi or fcgid?

Neither. Apache 2.2.2 mod_proxy + mod_proxy_balancer + mongrel rocks.

–
– Tom M.

5

Steve K. wrote:

I’ve had nothing but smooth sailing with mod_fastcgi and apache 2.0.x. …

Thank you. I decided to go to Apache 2 and leave Apache 1.x.

Should I use fcgi or fcgid?

I have read that fcgid is binary compatible. The machine will be debian
sarge.

Anyone knows what is better?
Eric

6

Neither. Apache 2.2.2 mod_proxy + mod_proxy_balancer + mongrel rocks.

– Tom M.

I agree with this 100%

I’ve recently switched my production box to this and so far am very
happy with it.

It’s very easy to setup and very flexible.

It also gave me about a 50% performance increase over fastcgi on Apache
2.0

7

On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 04:53 +0200, Michael G. wrote:

Neither. Apache 2.2.2 mod_proxy + mod_proxy_balancer + mongrel rocks.

– Tom M.

Wow, seriously? Maybe the apache guys finally got their head out of
their ass and got mod_proxy tuned up.

I must now set this up. :slight_smile:

–
Zed A. Shaw

http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/

8

if the question is between fcgi and fcgid go with fcgid. It’s being
heavily developed and performs very well.

Michael

9

I’m a big fan of Lighttpd for Rails on Debian. It has to be a testing
install, but man the setup is a snap.