http://qs1969.pair.com?node_id=402628


in reply to Re^2: mod_perl without separate config for static HTML?
in thread mod_perl without separate config for static HTML?

So, if your site's content is mainly static it would appear that bog-standard Perl CGI or PersitentPerl would be a better option for scripts since they don't affect the size of the httpd process used for serving static content.
  • Comment on Re^3: mod_perl without separate config for static HTML?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: mod_perl without separate config for static HTML?
by perrin (Chancellor) on Oct 27, 2004 at 04:53 UTC
    It's only a better option if you don't care about the performance gains from mod_perl.

    It's not hard to run the sort of proxy setup that the page you read in the mod_perl guide recommends. However, the purpose of that is increasing scalability. Most sites don't need scalability because they hardly get any traffic. Don't fret about this kind of thing unless you expect your site to be relatively large in terms of numbers of concurrent users.

    FWIW, mod_php has the same issue with process size if you run it with a code cache (sometimes called an accelerator). If you run it without one, it's slower than mod_perl.

Re^4: mod_perl without separate config for static HTML?
by gellyfish (Monsignor) on Oct 26, 2004 at 15:25 UTC

    No not necessarily, it really depends on what your concerns are. If, as it appears is the case, you are stuck with a mod_perl enabled Apache then you are going to have much the same size of httpd process anyway so you might as well use the mod_perl to handle the dynamic content, you can monitor the load on the server and tune the configuration (as I mentioned earlier) but if you have mod_perl already loaded then it will have no impact on the handling of static content whether you use it or not.

    I'm beginning to think that you might be better asking these questions somewhere more specifically concerned with apache configuration issues.

    /J\

Re^4: mod_perl without separate config for static HTML?
by waswas-fng (Curate) on Oct 26, 2004 at 15:50 UTC
    Bottom line:

    If you run mod_perl OR mod_php on the same config that your static pages are served from, you will have apache processes that are larger (and therefor you can run fewer on the same hardware/memory) and that can effect your static page serve rate. If static serve rate needs to be balls to the walls fast, you have two choices. 1) Dual install apache and limit how many of the apache processes are running mod_perl (only the amount needed for the mod_perl page serve, in your case few) and the static site (only serves static pages -- highly tuned config). 2) run the static content off another server.


    -Waswas