[FASTCGI] difference between apache's mod_fcgi, mod_cgid, and mod_fcgid?
charles_thomas at mac.com
Mon Dec 7 14:13:56 EST 2009
I just got through uninstalling mod_fcgid, and building mod_fastcgi
to use. I really think that is better suited for my needs than
mod_fcgid (I agree with what you said below and what James Robinson
What I really need/like about what fastcgi offers is only (truly)
supported by mod_fastcgi. mod_fcgid seems to be a separate project
(as James mentioned)... its part of apache.org as well - which is why
I liked initially.. when in Rome...
Thanks for all the help!
On Dec 7, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Rob Lemley wrote:
> Tom Bowden wrote:
>> Is the difference between these modules just a matter of version? I
>> am using Apache 2.2+ server -- and it uses mod_fcgid... from what i
>> can tell the big difference is that the configuration keywords are
>> difference ( FcgidAuthenticator, FcgidAuthorizer, FcgidAccessChecker,
>> FcgidWrapper, etc.).
> mod_fcgid is a different project. I've never used mod_fcgid. It
> appears useful in situations where many processes are somehow started
> and you want the fcgid process manager to kill them when not needed.
> We have one multi-threaded FastCgiExternalServer process per apache2
> virtual host. These servers never exit. Therefore, I never saw the
> advantage to the mod_fcgid "process management strategy, which
> concentrates on reducing the number of fastcgi server, and kick out
> corrupt fastcgi server as soon as possible".
> I'm not sure, but I guess if you had a single threaded fcgi server and
> wanted to have the number of instances of it (processes) to grow and
> shrink dynamically, then maybe that's the purpose of mod_fcgid. In
> case, we can accept fastcgi requests about as fast as apache sends
> because our accept loop immediately spawns a new thread to handle the
> request and goes back to get the next request.
> One user has reported much slower response times for mod_fcgid.
> The fastcgi server library code is somewhat "scary", global variables,
> unclearly documented return codes, etc. But it seems to work well for
> what we're doing.
> We've had problems with mod_fastcgi versions on windows. I think we
> haven't been able to go above a certain version (2.8?) with the most
> recent version of apache 2.
> FastCGI-developers mailing list
> FastCGI-developers at mailman.fastcgi.com
More information about the FastCGI-developers