in reply to Re: "faster and cheaper"
in thread Perl and Infiltrating PHP Workplaces

I'll have to take your word for it, but since we are nitpicking i'd like to point out that we use non mod_XXXX enabled Apache servers to serve most of our static content here where i work. ;)

UPDATE: We have Apache2 servers on the front end and mod_perl enabled servers on the back end. It works great for us. :)

jeffa

L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L--
-R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR
B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B--
H---H---H---H---H---H---
(the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: "faster and cheaper"
by Juerd (Abbot) on May 24, 2006 at 15:46 UTC

    I'll have to take your word for it, but since we are nitpicking i'd like to point out that we use non mod_XXXX enabled Apache servers to serve most of our static content here where i work. ;)

    That the server has the module loaded, does not mean these modules are used to handle the requests. If you're serving static files via per-request executed code, your design is seriously flawed. Having unequipped apaches handle the request does speed up things, though, because the memory footprint is smaller. However... why use the heavy weight Apache for static content if you have special arrangements for static content anyway?

    Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap', perl6_server => 'feather' }

[reply]

In Section Meditations