[REBOL] Re: Any changes re dbases in upcoming RT products?
From: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 2-Oct-2001 20:26
----- Original Message -----
From: "Maarten Koopmans" <[koopmans--itr--ing--nl]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 5:23 PM
Subject: [REBOL] Re: Any changes re dbases in upcoming RT products?
> Is FastCGI non-blocking? Otherwise this is a performance thing: I don't
> my FastCGI process to be blocking other requests to the same (external)
> instance. And FastCGI (at least in Apache and ZEUS) is dumb enough to
> allow one external process on a URL
That's not true imo. Look at docs - with both static and dynamic configs you
can use -processes X, where X is number of processes. Although it is a
little bit static, you can allocate X processes for each URL imo. Other
thing is, that Session Afinity patch is available for FastCGI, so it will do
some kind of load balancing for you, or at least assign one session ID to
the same process. Session afinity patch is coming to be default part of
FastCGI distro, but we already know it will not help us, as RT uses own
Look also at FastCGIConfig directive - many options there ...
I am stuck with Windows Apache version - Windows /Command allows usage of
only External FastCGI server set-up. But pressing reload button on browser
quickly two times crashes FastCGI listen loop. If I will not solve it, then
I can regard FastCGI not being functional at all under Windows ...
(in stead of queueing and balancing it
> over multiple instance, like Xitami does with LRWP)
> In cases where you run it in external mode and manage it yourself you
> probably use the fastcgi REBOL as a load balancer for any number of
> application instances, but as data now comes from 'get-modes I don't see
> to use it non-blocking....
> Too me it feels useless for high-performance environments (100+ req/sec)
> that's where you want FastCGI... I switched back to LRWP (thanks Robbert,
> you want the changes?)
What is LRWP?