RE: Question on multi-process CGID

["Mendonce, Kiran (STSD)" <ki...@hp.com>]

The problem with that would be HP does not package mod_fastcgi and
customers are always reluctant to change their existing scripts.

We tried the multi CGID approach and on multiple CPU machines, there was
an improvement in performance.

Regards,
Kiran

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Holsman [mailto:lists@holsman.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:54 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Question on multi-process CGID

tackling this another way.
how hard would it be to use something like mod_fastcgi of instead of the
standard CGI interface?

On 21/06/2006, at 8:00 AM, Paul Querna wrote:

> Mendonce, Kiran (STSD) wrote:
>>
>> We tried using mod_cgi with worker. And its very slow. So that's not 
>> an option we have. Currently we have only worker MPM supported on 
>> HP-UX which is why I tried the multiple cgid approach.
>
> Ah. Now it makes sense.  My experiences with this have only been on 
> Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris.  It is very much a possibility that fork()

> on HP-UX really sucks.
>
>> And the solution that was discussed then was also to provide multiple

>> CGI daemons. Will this be a feature that will be available sometime ?
>
> I don't think anyone is currently working on it. Feel Free to post 
> patches :)
>
>> Also, I'd like to know if any benchmaking results for CGI has been 
>> published with comparisons between the different Apache MPMs.
>
> Never done it on HP-UX.  On Linux 2.6 the experimental Event MPM is 
> fastest, then the Worker MPM and then the Prefork MPM.
>
> -Paul
>