|
|
|
|
|
by SahAssar
344 days ago
|
|
> FastCGI or some other method to avoid forking for each request is valuable regardless of runtime. If you have a runtime with high startup costs, even more so. What's the point of using FastCGI compared to a plain http server then? If you are going to have a persistent server running why not just use the protocol you are already using the semantics of? |
|
There's potential benefits for the httpd to manage specifics of client connections as well: If I'm using a single threaded process per request execution model, keep-alive connections really ruin that. Similarly with client transfer-encoding requests, does my application server need to know about that. Does my application server need to understand http/2 or http/3?
You could certainly do a reverse proxy and use HTTP instead of FastCGI as the protocol between the client facing httpd and the application server... although then you miss out on some speciality things like X-Sendfile to accelerate sending of files from the application server without actually transferring them through sockets to the httpd. You could add that to an http proxy too, I suppose.