Re: difference between apache's mod_fcgi, mod_cgid, and mod_fcgid?

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  
talked about.

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!

Tom



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  
> the
> 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  
> our
> case, we can accept fastcgi requests about as fast as apache sends  
> them,
> 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.
>
> Rob
>
> _______________________________________________
> FastCGI-developers mailing list
> FastCGI-developers-xGejAJT2w6xVgU18Zptdi0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org
> http://mailman.pins.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/fastcgi-developers