[Zope] why will FastCGI not be supported in the Future.

[Gerhard Schmidt]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +0000, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> On 28 Nov 2005, at 12:28, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
> >I know there is a way to do just the same with mod_proxy, but
> >mod_proxy does
> >open new connection for every request while fastcgi uses the same
> >connection
> >for all requests. The is no problem on low load. But with growing
> >load, this
> >can become a Problem.
>
> Well, it's not "a way to do it", it's *the* way.

Thats a real good argument. There is no *the* way. Every situation 
is different and having as mutch possibilities as possible is allways the 
best way to do it.  
 
> I highly doubt that your assertion about using more connections than
> just one is a problem, under any circumstance. All very large
> production sites that I ever dealt with use mod_rewrite/mod_proxy. It
> simply is not a problem. Or do you have proof?

Im runnig a very large site with 40000 users and a peak arround 60 Requests
per second. Having to call connect end all the routines that come with it  
is quite an increased load. Why. FastCGI work perfectly and efficiently. 
Thats exactly the usecase Fastcgi was developed for. 

In none of the Postings is an reason why FastCGI ist bad and therefore not 
supported in the future. Just to say "so it is" is not an Answer. 

So my question is still there. 

Bye
        Estartu

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhard Schmidt    | Nick : estartu      IRC : Estartu  |
Fischbachweg 3     |                                    |  PGP Public Key
86856 Hiltenfingen | EMail: estartu at augusta.de          |  on request 
Germany            | 					|  

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 466 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope/attachments/20051128/0eaa6ff6/attachment.bin