|
Re^3: Is mod_perl for Windoze not ready for prime time?
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Mar 17, 2004 at 03:40 UTC
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
FreeBSD 4.9 (latest stable) scales excellently, and the 5.x series promises to tune many aspects, but isn't considered stable yet.
The Linux kernel had serious problems on SMP systems up to the version 2.4 series. 2.4 does well all-around, though suffers under very high loads. 2.6 catches up with FreeBSD in all regards and can basically be considered to be "playing with the big boys", a bit better here a bit worse there, but it's definitely a serious contender in all areas. Note that 2.6 is not available as a package in Debian stable; however, installing a 2.6 kernel is not an issue at all, anway, you just follow standard procedures..
A base install for both systems is pretty easy to accomplish (driver issues aside, of course..), and additional software isn't hard to install either, but actual administration does require reading. However, most of your effort at first will be learning where and how to find documentation; the learning curve is steep, but rapidly flattens once you get the big picture of the system and grok the inherent consistency of most things Unix.
And since you've done some Perl programming, you'll have at least vaguely heard of a number of Unix concepts, too, so that might ease the initial hurdle.
Makeshifts last the longest.
| [reply] |
|
|
Both Linux and FreeBSD have good SMP support. I haven't personally seen benchmarks for them on SMP, though. Either one is an excelent choice.
Note that MySQL doesn't like the way FreeBSD does multi-threading. You'll be OK on low-traffic sites, but high-traffic ones can get bogged down fast (as Perl Monks often does).
Definately go with mod_perl 1 unless you have specific requiments that need mod_perl2. Even then, I would fight to hold off on mod_perl2 for a while. Just be sure the developers read the mod_perl2 migration docs, as they should probably code with the idea twards migrating later.
----
: () { :|:& };:
Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Is mod_perl for Windoze not ready for prime time?
by BUU (Prior) on Mar 17, 2004 at 04:31 UTC
|
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] |
Re: Re: Re: Is mod_perl for Windoze not ready for prime time?
by stvn (Monsignor) on Mar 17, 2004 at 16:37 UTC
|
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] |