in reply to Is mod_perl for Windoze not ready for prime time?

Rod,

mod_perl 1.99 is still under development, and is not really recommended for production use. But Apache 1.36/mod_perl 1.0 on Windows is essentially a single-threaded, single-process application and while somewhat more stable, is not really recommended for production use either.

Personally I have used both the Apache 1.36/mod_perl 1.0/Win2K and Apache 2.0/mod_perl 1.99/Win2K in production, but on a pretty low traffic a site (nowhere near the hits you are getting). I was pretty much forced into it by our client, our app usually runs on Linux or BSD but they wanted Windows, and in the end, the client is always right :-P. Personally I would not recommend it at all, and have promised to fight tooth and nail the next time a client requests we deploy on Windows.

I would recommend moving to some form of UNIX instead of Win2K, you will likely see even better performance than you are seeing now. Although, this is just my opinion and experience, others may have had different results, so take what i say with a grain of salt.

-stvn
  • Comment on Re: Is mod_perl for Windoze not ready for prime time?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Is mod_perl for Windoze not ready for prime time?
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 17, 2004 at 03:14 UTC
    Thanks, at least my suspicions are confirmed. Now, I've got to move to apps back off to other servers which are over loaded so I can start over on this server. The problem is that I only know enough about UNIX to be dangerous. I know performance will be better, but given the learning curve, which flavor of UNIX and mod_perl would you choose for a dual P3, 1.2Mhz machine with 4GB of memory and RAID? Thanks, Rod
[reply]
      For a webserver facing the internet I'd use Debian (stable) or FreeBSD, however be aware that you're in for a lot of reading.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

[reply]
        >>be aware that you're in for a lot of reading.

        Is that an understatement?

        Does either perform better than the other on dual processors? Is mod_perl 1.0 the best choice?

        Thanks,
        Rod

[reply]
      Just for a bit of advocacy, I found debian really, really easy to install and configure. You can do a "Base install", it asks maybe a dozen questions total, most of which seemed fairly obvious to me (configure keybord, add accounts, configure network, etc) and then you have a nice clean base system with basically nothing running. Nothing running = no security holes.

      After that, assuming you have the network setup, a simple apt-get install apache-perl and bam, you've got apache 1.3x and mod_perl 1.x set up properly. =]. Obviously you still have to configure the various bits, but I found it simple and easy at least.
[reply]
[d/l]
        Unless you are like me and you go to install Debian and discover that it doesn't even have a driver that can handle your ethernet card.
[reply]
      Rod,

      I know performance will be better, but given the learning curve, which flavor of UNIX and mod_perl would you choose for a dual P3, 1.2Mhz machine with 4GB of memory and RAID?
      To be honest, we usually are deploying on managed servers, so I can't really say. For our inhouse dev and staging servers we usually use RedHat, but being that I only write the code (and configure Apache/mod_perl) my knowledge of the details of Linux/UNIX and hardware is limited. There are alot of good suggestions here already, but I would take that question over to a more Linux/UNIX/BSD oriented board and see what they say there too.

      -stvn
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom