Michael Peppler
Sybase Consulting
Sybase on Linux
Install Guide for Sybase on Linux
General Sybase Resources
General Perl Resources
BCP Tool
Bug Tracker
Mailing List Archive
Downloads Directory
Sybase on Linux FAQ
Sybperl FAQ
Michael Peppler's resume

sybperl-l Archive

Up    Prev    Next    

From: Doug Fairclough <kensey at clearstation dot com>
Subject: Re: DBlib vs CTlib, please give me a clue!
Date: Oct 10 1997 9:10PM

for what its worth, a friend of mine tried using fast cgi and
had problems with it.  he then switched to mod_perl.  i think
there are far more people using mod_perl, so that it probably
your best bet as you will get the most help and support from
the community at large, and it will be more stable since it
has a larger base of users.

btw, has anyone out there compiled C code that use DBLIB
or CTLIB directly (without using perl at all) into apache ?
i'm wondering if there is anything in the code making the
database calls that would have to change if you use this



On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Harry Bochner wrote:

> Michael Peppler wrote:
> > Now your best bet to improve performance for CGI scripts is to use
> > the Apache server with mod_perl, as this allows you to a) run CGI
> > scripts without the overhead of a fork()/exec() and b) have
> > persistent database connections,
> I certainly agree that for short, simple queries, your bottleneck
> is likely to be the overhead of fork(), exec(), and loading all
> your perl code.
> But I'm wondering if anyone has done comparisons between mod_perl
> and FASTCGI. So far I haven't tried either one. On this mailing list
> I've heard mod_perl mentioned much more than FastCgi, but when I
> looked into FastCgi, it seemed like a more flexible and general
> technology. If any one has tried both, I'd be interested in hearing
> about their experiences.
> One specific concern I have is handling development. During
> development you _want_ to reload the perl code every time, because
> you're constantly changing it. My impression is that with mod_perl,
> once your code has been read by the server, the only straightforward
> way to load a new version is to restart httpd, and that doesn't
> sound like something I want to do every five minutes. Am I wrong
> about this? It looked like FastCgi might provide other options, though
> you might have to work at it to implement them.
> Anyone have experience they'd like to share?
> Thanks!
> -- 
> Harry