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!
on 2007-04-10 20:58
on 2007-04-11 15:26
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
on 2007-04-11 20:09
On Apr 10, 11:57 am, "goodieboy" <goodie...@gmail.com> 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.