Date: 13 Feb 2001 22:25:48 -0600 From: Tim Ayers <tayers@bridge.com> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: apache+mod_perl+eperl , cgi Message-ID: <wkg0hhzy9f.fsf@tim.bridge.com> In-Reply-To: "Ariff Abdullah"'s message of "Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:22:34 %2B0800" References: <54e050ea.50ea54e0@time.net.my>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "A" == Ariff Abdullah <skywizard@time.net.my> writes: A> Hello. A> Guys , which one do you prefer (in terms of performance AND stability) A> 1) apache+mod_perl, executing cgi internally using the modperl DSO A> 2) apache, executing plain cgi (err.. of course it spawning new A> proccess) A> 3) or perhaps, apache+mod_perl+ePerl A> (security not an issue, since this is just an internal http for private A> net) A> any insight? Apache running CGI's is the slowest. By far! Apache + mod_perl is much faster, but programming good mod_perl apps is quite a different skill set. OTOH, badly written mod_perl apps are still way faster than CGI's. Apache + mod_perl + ePerl will be about the same performance as without ePerl, but development time is typically faster. It's like programming in Motif vs straight X. (Or C vs machine code is maybe a more widely understood analogy. ;-) There are also other embedded Perl solutions besides ePerl: Mason, EmbPerl and Template-Toolkit come to mind. Apache and Apache+mod_perl are very stable. I don't know about ePerl. See http://perl.apache.org/guide/ for a lot more info about mod_perl. Good luck, HTH and Hope you have a very nice day, :-) Tim Ayers (tayers@bridge.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?wkg0hhzy9f.fsf>