# FastCGI: Apache 1.x or 2 on new Debian System? **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [April 21, 2006, 8:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fastcgi-apache-1-x-or-2-on-new-debian-system/58456 "2006-04-21T20:36:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/blair)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2006, 8:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fastcgi-apache-1-x-or-2-on-new-debian-system/58456/1 "2006-04-21T20:36:49Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/blair)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2006, 10:15pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fastcgi-apache-1-x-or-2-on-new-debian-system/58456/2 "2006-04-21T22:15:37Z")
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: > **[开元棋盘牌(中国)官方网站-IOS苹果/安卓Android通用版/手机APP版下载](http://www.getindi.com/)** > > 晋中市开元棋盘牌App下载(2023全站)最新版本IOS/安卓通用版下载，软件通过权威杀毒软件检测，【佐老板推荐】安全可靠的棋盘牌平台。开元棋盘牌(中国)APP官方版最新下载,开元棋盘APP下载老版本,开元棋盘软件官方网站多种版本带给大家,开元棋盘又叫做开元棋牌app爆款产品。 Nary a problem. Using PostgreSQL as the backend. Good times! Yours, Tom [http://tomcopeland.blogs.com/](http://tomcopeland.blogs.com/) ---
**Author:** ![blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/blair)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2006, 10:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fastcgi-apache-1-x-or-2-on-new-debian-system/58456/3 "2006-04-21T22:43:42Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/blair)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 4:46am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fastcgi-apache-1-x-or-2-on-new-debian-system/58456/4 "2006-05-10T04:46:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/blair)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 3:13am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fastcgi-apache-1-x-or-2-on-new-debian-system/58456/5 "2006-05-10T03:13:58Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/blair)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 4:53am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fastcgi-apache-1-x-or-2-on-new-debian-system/58456/6 "2006-05-10T04:53:03Z")
> 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 ---
**Author:** ![blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/blair)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 7:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fastcgi-apache-1-x-or-2-on-new-debian-system/58456/7 "2006-05-10T19:43:24Z")
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. 🙂 – Zed A. Shaw > **[Zed A. shaw](https://zedshaw.com/)** > > Personal essays and writings by Zed A. Shaw. [http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/](http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/) ---
**Author:** ![blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/blair)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fastcgi-apache-1-x-or-2-on-new-debian-system/58456/8 "2006-05-10T19:53:04Z")
if the question is between fcgi and fcgid go with fcgid. It’s being heavily developed and performs very well. Michael ---
**Author:** ![blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@blair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/blair)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 12:07am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fastcgi-apache-1-x-or-2-on-new-debian-system/58456/9 "2006-05-11T00:07:53Z")
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.