# Mongrel Cluster/Apache 2.2 OR FastCGI/Apache 1.3?

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mongrel-cluster-apache-2-2-or-fastcgi-apache-1-3/91611>\
**Category:** Deployment\
**Created:** [April 10, 2007, 8:58pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mongrel-cluster-apache-2-2-or-fastcgi-apache-1-3/91611 "2007-04-10T20:58:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![goodieboy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/ecc23a/32.png) [@goodieboy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/goodieboy)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2007, 8:58pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mongrel-cluster-apache-2-2-or-fastcgi-apache-1-3/91611/1 "2007-04-10T20:58:04Z")

</div>

Hi,

Can someone tell me the main differences between using a cluster of  
mongrel instances with Apache 2/load balancing and just using straight  
up fastCGI with Apache 1.3?

I’ve got the mongrel setup now, but the live server may not be  
upgraded to Apache 2.x so Apache 1.3 + FastCGI may be the only option.

Which is “better”?  
Which is “faster”?  
What about simultaneous connections?

Any information would be greatly appreciated!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![goodieboy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/ecc23a/32.png) [@goodieboy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/goodieboy)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2007, 3:26pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mongrel-cluster-apache-2-2-or-fastcgi-apache-1-3/91611/2 "2007-04-11T15:26:57Z")

</div>

goodieboy,

I think that generally, Apache 2.2/Mongrel Cluster is considered to be  
“industry standard best practice”, I can tell you however that for  
most sites, Apache 1.3 w/ mod\_fastcgi or even Apache 2.0 with  
mod\_fcgid works well enough. In my last job, we ran an application  
with either of the last 2 setups with anywhere from 2 to 8 fcgi  
processes running and roughly 100 users logged in at all times and  
performance was fine. That being said, I don’t think that anyone will  
argue that 2.2 with Mongrel is faster, more stable, and easier to use  
since many of the tools imply that type of setup.

Regards,  
Josh

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![goodieboy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/ecc23a/32.png) [@goodieboy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/goodieboy)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2007, 8:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mongrel-cluster-apache-2-2-or-fastcgi-apache-1-3/91611/3 "2007-04-11T20:09:29Z")

</div>

On Apr 10, 11:57 am, “goodieboy” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Can someone tell me the main differences between using a cluster of  
> mongrel instances with Apache 2/load balancing and just using straight  
> up fastCGI with Apache 1.3?

Yes. One is reasonably reliable and stable (mongrel), and the other  
(FCGI) is an unreliable piece of crap that will drink all your beer  
and pass out on your couch right before your mother comes for a  
visit.

Alright, maybe it isn’t that bad. But it isn’t good.

> I’ve got the mongrel setup now, but the live server may not be  
> upgraded to Apache 2.x so Apache 1.3 + FastCGI may be the only option.

Unless your site/app has a dependency on something that _only apache_  
does, NGINX would be a better choice to serve statics and front the  
mongrels. It is faster and lighter.

Apache can also be bumped to another port and NGINX can front it as  
well, if there is such a dependency.