FastCGI vs. mod_ssl

Hi All,

Can anyone tell me (from their own experience or otherwise) whether or
not there is a noticeable performance difference between running RT
under FastCGI vs mod_ssl?

Thanks,

Mick

“MS” == Mick Szucs mick@onramp.ca writes:

MS> Can anyone tell me (from their own experience or otherwise) whether or
MS> not there is a noticeable performance difference between running RT
MS> under FastCGI vs mod_ssl?

You’re comparing apples to chickens.

At 08:49 AM 4/29/2003, Mick Szucs wrote:

Hi All,

Can anyone tell me (from their own experience or otherwise) whether or
not there is a noticeable performance difference between running RT
under FastCGI vs mod_ssl?

mod_ssl doesn’t run cgi programs it is for running a secure web server

ie if you wanted to use RT on an ssl aware apache server you would have to
have both
FastCGI and mod_ssl.

I think you may be thinking of mod_perl not mod_ssl.

John

<>< Proverbs 3:5-6 “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on
your own understanding;
in all your ways acknowledge him, and he
will make your paths straight.”

Can anyone tell me (from their own experience or otherwise) whether or
not there is a noticeable performance difference between running RT
under FastCGI vs mod_ssl?

mod_ssl doesn’t run cgi programs it is for running a secure web server

ie if you wanted to use RT on an ssl aware apache server you would have to
have both
FastCGI and mod_ssl.

I think you may be thinking of mod_perl not mod_ssl.

Right … mod_perl. Sorry 'bout that folks, hadn’t consumed the
appropriate amount of caffeine prior to posting :slight_smile:

Thanks,

Mick

I am also very interested in learning whether there are any performance /
speed advantages in using FastCGI instead of mod_perl with RT2 or RT3.

Thanks

Hillary-----Original Message-----
From: Mick Szucs [mailto:mick@onramp.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:44 PM
To: John Gedeon
Cc: 'rt-users@lists.fsck.com’
Subject: Re: [rt-users] FastCGI vs. mod_perl (not mod_ssl)

On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 13:36, John Gedeon wrote:

Can anyone tell me (from their own experience or otherwise) whether or
not there is a noticeable performance difference between running RT
under FastCGI vs mod_ssl?

mod_ssl doesn’t run cgi programs it is for running a secure web server

ie if you wanted to use RT on an ssl aware apache server you would have to

have both
FastCGI and mod_ssl.

I think you may be thinking of mod_perl not mod_ssl.

Right … mod_perl. Sorry 'bout that folks, hadn’t consumed the
appropriate amount of caffeine prior to posting :slight_smile:

Thanks,

Mick

rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

Have you read the FAQ? The RT FAQ Manager lives at http://fsck.com/rtfm

You can add another “me too” in there…

Jonathan KaufmanTo: “‘Mick Szucs’” mick@onramp.ca, John Gedeon jgedeon@qualcomm.com
cc: “‘rt-users@lists.fsck.com’” rt-users@lists.fsck.com
"Gororo, Subject: RE: [rt-users] FastCGI vs. mod_perl (not mod_ssl)
Hillary"
<HGororo@charter
com.com>
Sent by:
rt-users-admin@l
ists.fsck.com

                    04/29/2003 12:50                                                                                                
                    PM                                                                                                              

I am also very interested in learning whether there are any performance /
speed advantages in using FastCGI instead of mod_perl with RT2 or RT3.

Thanks

Hillary

From: Mick Szucs [mailto:mick@onramp.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:44 PM
To: John Gedeon
Cc: 'rt-users@lists.fsck.com’
Subject: Re: [rt-users] FastCGI vs. mod_perl (not mod_ssl)

Can anyone tell me (from their own experience or otherwise) whether or
not there is a noticeable performance difference between running RT
under FastCGI vs mod_ssl?

mod_ssl doesn’t run cgi programs it is for running a secure web server

ie if you wanted to use RT on an ssl aware apache server you would have
to

have both
FastCGI and mod_ssl.

I think you may be thinking of mod_perl not mod_ssl.

Right … mod_perl. Sorry 'bout that folks, hadn’t consumed the
appropriate amount of caffeine prior to posting :slight_smile:

Thanks,

Mick

rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

Have you read the FAQ? The RT FAQ Manager lives at http://fsck.com/rtfm
rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

Have you read the FAQ? The RT FAQ Manager lives at http://fsck.com/rtfm

I think the answer will be a resounding “maybe”.

Here are the issues as I see them:

  1. are you running RT on its own private instance of apache?
  2. are you on a dedicated host just for RT?
  3. how busy is your RT web interface? that is, how many people are
    processing tickets simultaneously?

I think the main thing is issue 1. If you’re running a private
mod_perl apache for RT, then you have little advantage to running
FastCGI. About the only thing I can think is that FastCGI may do some
buffering to free up the perl process to handle another request, and
that will bring into play issue 3. If you’re not a very busy web
site, then it doesn’t matter that the process was freed up for another
request since there most likely won’t be one waiting to run.

If you’re running a single apache to handle a bunch of services, then
you’re likely to benefit with FastCGI (or SpeedyCGI) since only the
heavy-weight RT requests will go thru the perl interpreter, not every
single request.

The mod_perl tuning document (included in mod_perl) would be worth a
good read. Just think of the Fast/SpeedyCGI setup as moral equivalent
to the mod_proxy based front/back end setup to mod_perl. RT doesn’t
use any of the Apache handler hooks provided by mod_perl, so there is
nothing lost by eliminating it.

Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc.
Internet: khera@kciLink.com Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497
AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/