28 Nov 2005, at 12:28, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
I know there is a way to do just the same with mod_proxy, but
mod_proxy does
open new connection for every request while fastcgi uses the same
connection
for all requests. The is no problem on low load. But with growing
load, this
can become a Problem.
Well, it's not "a way to do it", it's *the* way.
I highly doubt that your assertion about using more connections than
just one is a problem, under any circumstance. All very large
production sites that I ever dealt with use mod_rewrite/mod_proxy. It
simply is not a problem. do you have proof?
jens
Zope maillist - Zope (AT) zope (DOT) org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
)

28 Nov 2005, at 14:52, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
Sure I object. Why should perfectly working code be removed. There is
no alternativ for heavy loaded sites which need integration of apache
and zope. mod_proxy is no alternativ because it raises the load even
further.

Sorry, I have to call "Bull****" on the assertion that mod_proxy
raises the load in any horrible way. I have been using Zope for more
than 6 years and no one has ever made this claim or provided proof
that this is so.

jens

Zope maillist - Zope (AT) zope (DOT) org

** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -

)

Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +0000, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:

28 Nov 2005, at 12:28, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
>I know there is a way to do just the same with mod_proxy, but
>mod_proxy does
>open new connection for every request while fastcgi uses the same
>connection
>for all requests. The is no problem on low load. But with growing
>load, this
>can become a Problem.
>
Well, it's not "a way to do it", it's *the* way.

Thats a real good argument. There is no *the* way. Every situation
is different and having as mutch possibilities as possible is allways the
best way to do it.

I highly doubt that your assertion about using more connections than
just one is a problem, under any circumstance. All very large
production sites that I ever dealt with use mod_rewrite/mod_proxy. It
simply is not a problem. do you have proof?

Im runnig a very large site with 40000 users and a peak arround 60 Requests
per second. Having to call connect end all the routines that come with it
is quite an increased load. Why. FastCGI work perfectly and efficiently.
Thats exactly the usecase Fastcgi was developed for.

In none of the Postings is an reason why FastCGI ist bad and therefore not
supported in the future. Just to say "so it is" is not an Answer.

So my question is still there.

Bye
Estartu

Gerhard Schmidt | Nick : estartu IRC : Estartu |
Fischbachweg 3 | | PGP Public Key
86856 Hiltenfingen | EMail: estartu (AT) augusta (DOT) de | on request
Germany | |

Zope maillist - Zope (AT) zope (DOT) org

** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -

)

PGP SIGNATURE
Version: PGP 6.5.8

=cRW1
PGP SIGNATURE

28 Nov 2005, at 13:05, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:

Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +0000, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>
>28 Nov 2005, at 12:28, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
I know there is a way to do just the same with mod_proxy, but
mod_proxy does
open new connection for every request while fastcgi uses the same
connection
for all requests. The is no problem on low load. But with growing
load, this
can become a Problem.
>>
>Well, it's not "a way to do it", it's *the* way.
>
Thats a real good argument. There is no *the* way. Every situation
is different and having as mutch possibilities as possible is
allways the
best way to do it.

It's a matter of resources, plain and simple. No one has stepped
forward to support it, so it atrophied. If you think it's a great
thing to keep, volunteer.

jens

Zope maillist - Zope (AT) zope (DOT) org

** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -

)

28 Nov 2005, at 13:25, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
>It's a matter of resources, plain and simple. No one has stepped
>forward to support it, so it atrophied. If you think it's a great
>thing to keep, volunteer.
>
I would if I had the time and the knowlege. But I don't see a Problem
with the Code right now. As I said i runs here perfectly smooth.

"It works" and "is supported" are two different things. "Is
supported" also means there are people who will come forward and help
out when the code breaks or when people ask questions about it. As
you have seen yourself, no one does. The answer is (and will remain,
unless someone volunteers): Use at your own peril.

jens

Zope maillist - Zope (AT) zope (DOT) org

** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -

)

Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 01:07:49PM +0000, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:

28 Nov 2005, at 13:05, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:

Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:43:44PM +0000, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>
>28 Nov 2005, at 12:28, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
I know there is a way to do just the same with mod_proxy, but
mod_proxy does
open new connection for every request while fastcgi uses the same
connection
for all requests. The is no problem on low load. But with growing
load, this
can become a Problem.
>>
>>Well, it's not "a way to do it", it's *the* way.
>
>Thats a real good argument. There is no *the* way. Every situation
>is different and having as mutch possibilities as possible is
>allways the
>best way to do it.

It's a matter of resources, plain and simple. No one has stepped
forward to support it, so it atrophied. If you think it's a great
thing to keep, volunteer.

I would if I had the time and the knowlege. But I don't see a Problem
with the Code right now. As I said i runs here perfectly smooth.

Bye
Estartu

Gerhard Schmidt | Nick : estartu IRC : Estartu |
Fischbachweg 3 | | PGP Public Key
86856 Hiltenfingen | EMail: estartu (AT) augusta (DOT) de | on request
Germany | |

Zope maillist - Zope (AT) zope (DOT) org

** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -

)

PGP SIGNATURE
Version: PGP 6.5.8

=J2vU
PGP SIGNATURE

Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 11:06:35AM -0500, Paul Winkler wrote:
Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 04:29:22PM +0100, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
I don't have exakt numbers. We started with pcgi and had heavy problems
under load. They disapeared with the fastCGI module coming wird zope 2.6
i gues. I ve tried mod_proxy back than but had many problems. I can not
test on the Production system as there are 40000 users on the system and
we have enougth Problems with Readconflictes and Session problems.

I'm not surprised you had problems with PCGI, it was known to be
extremely slow. AFAIK it ran zope in single-threaded mode so
concurrency was terrible.

It sounds like you have concluded that, because FCGI is faster than
PCGI, then FCGI must also be faster than mod_rewrite / mod_proxy.
That's just not logical.

No, I just described the way we came to fastcgi and that it solved some
of the Problems back than.

I pretty sure that mod_proxy is much better than pcgi was. But logic
tells me that it can't be better than fastcgi. Building a new connection
costs time and CPU power and as the this connections have to be build
for each request the impact grows with the number of requets.

p.s. If you're having session problems and read conflicts with 2.6,
you should strongly consider upgrading to *at least* 2.7.3 and maybe 2.8.
Heavy use of sessioning is still not perfect (see Dennis Allison's
recent threads), but it is *much* better since 2.7.3.
In addition, ReadConflictErrors are greatly reduced since the
release of ZDB 3.3, which first shipped with Zope 2.8.

We are running zope 2.7.8 at the moment and working on mirgating to
2.8.x at the moment exaly for this reasons.

Bye
Estartu

Gerhard Schmidt | Nick : estartu IRC : Estartu |
Fischbachweg 3 | | PGP Public Key
86856 Hiltenfingen | EMail: estartu (AT) augusta (DOT) de | on request
Germany | |

Zope maillist - Zope (AT) zope (DOT) org

** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -

)

PGP SIGNATURE
Version: PGP 6.5.8

=PhZa
PGP SIGNATURE

5. Dezember 2005 07:51:17 +0000 Chris Withers <chris (AT) simplistix (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

Andrew Milton wrote:
>>
>If there's noone around who can maintain it, then just say that. Don't
>say there's 'a better way', because I can guarantee you the people using
>FCGI are using it for a reason,
>
I haven't seen anyone come up with real justification for using FCGI

FCGI is deprecated effective Zope 2.9.
-aj

Zope maillist - Zope (AT) zope (DOT) org

** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -

)

PGP SIGNATURE
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin)

QJNrur1m5/GiK4WeD3RKN00=
=XG
PGP SIGNATURE

Am Mittwoch, den 07.12.2005, 09:39 +0000 schrieb Chris Withers:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
The original poster explained his wish to retain FCGI:

It reuses an existing connection between Apache and Zope
while (he thinks and I might believe it) the recommended
"mod_proxy" way each time opens a new connection.

Thus, FastCGI might be more efficient.

Show me some evidence proving that fcgi or mod_proxy is the significant
limiting performance factor in a setup involving zope and I'll take this
seriously ;-)

The funny thing is - performance isnt really the pro of
fcgi over http. Its really more about transporting header
and environment data from zope to apache, which is
kinda limited with mod_proxy. (Think alternative
authentication, ssl )

Tino.

Zope maillist - Zope (AT) zope (DOT) org

** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -

)

The funny thing is - performance isnt really the pro of
fcgi over http. Its really more about transporting header
and environment data from zope to apache, which is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
actually I meant apache to zope.

I go and get some coffee

Tino

Zope maillist - Zope (AT) zope (DOT) org

** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -

)

David Bear schrieb:

12/10/05, *Tino Wildenhain* <tino (AT) wildenhain (DOT) de
<mailto:tino (AT) wildenhain (DOT) de>wrote:

Am Mittwoch, den 07.12.2005, 09:39 +0000 schrieb Chris Withers:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
The original poster explained his wish to retain FCGI:

It reuses an existing connection between Apache and Zope
while (he thinks and I might believe it) the recommended
"mod_proxy" way each time opens a new connection.

Thus, FastCGI might be more efficient.

Show me some evidence proving that fcgi or mod_proxy is the
significant
limiting performance factor in a setup involving zope and I'll
take this
seriously ;-)

The funny thing is - performance isnt really the pro of
fcgi over http. Its really more about transporting header
and environment data from zope to apache, which is
kinda limited with mod_proxy. (Think alternative
authentication, ssl )

This was my reason for going with fastcgi instead of modproxy. I
wanted zope to also log the http header data from the client. I want to
have zope make some decisions based on the user agent. If modproxy can
preserve ALL the request headers that I suppose I can use it. I somewhat
understand fastcgi. I don't understand everything mod-proxy does
(well, its more magical than fastcgi)

mod_proxy passes all relevent headers. Even user-agent.
But serious web development should never try to depend
on the useragent string. (it can and will be faked - and
you will have a hard time to know all possible user-agents
out there (I occassionally browse as google - you would
be surpriced what you see :))

The only hard part is ssl-client certificate or other
apache side auth information. Auth-headers (basic auth)
are of course passed.

Zope maillist - Zope (AT) zope (DOT) org

** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -

)