Rails - Apr 2006 - FastCGI: Apache 1.x or 2 on new Debian System?

Hi,

I am just installing a new test environment, but this is just for 
preparing the next one, which will be a production server.

I am doing a clean Debian Sarge 3.1 install with stable sources. I have 
to decide if I install Apache 1.x or 2 now.

I have read that FastCGI is better supported/developed for Apache 1.x. 
Is this (still) true? What is easier, more stable, etc? I want to run 
rails with Apache/FastCGI then. (Or is there an even better solution 
which I am not aware of?)

Any suggestions, experiences, hints?

Thank you!
Eric


-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 20:36 +0200, Eric Blair wrote:
> I am doing a clean Debian Sarge 3.1 install with stable sources. I have 
> to decide if I install Apache 1.x or 2 now.
> 
> I have read that FastCGI is better supported/developed for Apache 1.x. 
> Is this (still) true? What is easier, more stable, etc? I want to run 
> rails with Apache/FastCGI then. (Or is there an even better solution 
> which I am not aware of?)
I''ve been using Apache 1.3 + mod_fastcgi on our production Rails app:

http://getindi.com/

Nary a problem.  Using PostgreSQL as the backend.  Good times!

Yours,

Tom
http://tomcopeland.blogs.com/

I''ve had nothing but smooth sailing with mod_fastcgi and apache 2.0.x.
I
would not advise going straight to 2.2 because it broke some modules and 
porters in the Linux and BSD worlds are still playing catch-up. If 
you''re using debs, RPMs or some other form of package for your Apache 
and modules, you may want to get the latest packages if there are any 
newer than what went out with the distro. In my FreeBSD world, some 
crucial patches that made mod_fastcgi build properly hit in January and 
you may find something similar on Debian, since fastcgi module 
maintenance got back in gear around that time.

If you''re planning on hosting an SVN server on the same box, Apache 2.0
is the obvious sensible choice because the SVN Apache modules require 
2.x. It''s quite a bit easier to set up SVN clients talking to an 
HTTP/HTTPS repository than it is the other ways involving ssh.

Eric Blair wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am just installing a new test environment, but this is just for 
> preparing the next one, which will be a production server.
> 
> I am doing a clean Debian Sarge 3.1 install with stable sources. I have 
> to decide if I install Apache 1.x or 2 now.
> 
> I have read that FastCGI is better supported/developed for Apache 1.x. 
> Is this (still) true? What is easier, more stable, etc? I want to run 
> rails with Apache/FastCGI then. (Or is there an even better solution 
> which I am not aware of?)
> 
> Any suggestions, experiences, hints?
> 
> Thank you!
> Eric

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Steve Koppelman wrote:
> I''ve had nothing but smooth sailing with mod_fastcgi and apache
2.0.x. ...
Thank you. I decided to go to Apache 2 and leave Apache 1.x.

Should I use fcgi or fcgid?

I have read that fcgid is binary compatible. The machine will be debian 
sarge.

Anyone knows what is better?
Eric

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On May 9, 2006, at 6:13 PM, Eric Blair wrote:
> Steve Koppelman wrote:
>> I''ve had nothing but smooth sailing with mod_fastcgi and
apache
>> 2.0.x. ...
>
> Thank you. I decided to go to Apache 2 and leave Apache 1.x.
>
> Should I use fcgi or fcgid?
Neither. Apache 2.2.2 mod_proxy + mod_proxy_balancer + mongrel rocks.

-- 
-- Tom Mornini

> Neither. Apache 2.2.2 mod_proxy + mod_proxy_balancer + mongrel rocks.
> 
> -- Tom Mornini

I agree with this 100%

I''ve recently switched my production box to this and so far am very 
happy with it.

It''s very easy to setup and very flexible.

It also gave me about a 50% performance increase over fastcgi on Apache 
2.0


-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 04:53 +0200, Michael Greenly
wrote:
> > Neither. Apache 2.2.2 mod_proxy + mod_proxy_balancer + mongrel rocks.
> > 
> > -- Tom Mornini
> I agree with this 100%
> 
> I''ve recently switched my production box to this and so far am
very
> happy with it.
> 
> It''s very easy to setup and very flexible.
> 
> It also gave me about a 50% performance increase over fastcgi on Apache 
> 2.0
> 
> 
Wow, seriously?  Maybe the apache guys finally got their head out of
their ass and got mod_proxy tuned up.

I must now set this up. :-)


-- 
Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/

if the question is between fcgi and fcgid go with fcgid.  It''s being
heavily developed and performs very well.

Michael

I''m a big fan of Lighttpd for Rails on Debian. It has to be a testing 
install, but man the setup is a snap.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.