Debian Bug report logs - #592937
should we keep libapache2-mod-fastcgi?

Package: libapache2-mod-fastcgi; Maintainer for libapache2-mod-fastcgi is Tatsuki Sugiura <sugi@nemui.org>; Source for libapache2-mod-fastcgi is src:libapache-mod-fastcgi.

Reported by: Thijs Kinkhorst <thijs@debian.org>

Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:09:01 UTC

Severity: important

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Tatsuki Sugiura <sugi@nemui.org>:
Bug#592937; Package libapache2-mod-fastcgi. (Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:09:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Thijs Kinkhorst <thijs@debian.org>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Tatsuki Sugiura <sugi@nemui.org>. (Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:09:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Thijs Kinkhorst <thijs@debian.org>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: should we keep libapache2-mod-fastcgi?
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:05:09 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Package: libapache2-mod-fastcgi
Severity: important

Hi,

We currently have both libapache2-mod-fastcgi and libapache2-mod-fcgid in the 
archive. This package, mod-fastcgi, has not seen new upstream releases since 
2007. Also, anyone I know recommends to use mod_fcgid over mod_fastcgi. Is 
there a reason to keep mod_fastcgi in the archive and release it with squeeze?

If there is such a reason, the package description should describe when to 
choose which module.


Cheers,
Thijs
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org:
Bug#592937; Package libapache2-mod-fastcgi. (Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:51:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Tatsuki Sugiura <sugi@nemui.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. (Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:51:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 592937@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tatsuki Sugiura <sugi@nemui.org>
To: Thijs Kinkhorst <thijs@debian.org>, 592937@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#592937: should we keep libapache2-mod-fastcgi?
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:43:58 +0900
Hello,

>>> In Message "Bug#592937: should we keep libapache2-mod-fastcgi?"
>>>            <201008141105.09608.thijs@debian.org>,
>>> Thijs Kinkhorst <thijs@debian.org>  said;
> We currently have both libapache2-mod-fastcgi and libapache2-mod-fcgid in the 
> archive. This package, mod-fastcgi, has not seen new upstream releases since 
> 2007. Also, anyone I know recommends to use mod_fcgid over mod_fastcgi. Is 
> there a reason to keep mod_fastcgi in the archive and release it with squeeze?

mod_fcgid is a good alternative module to handle FastCGI.
However it have no function to connect to external server currently.
I think it's be needed to keep mod_fastcgi until mod_fcgi implements
external server connectivity.

> If there is such a reason, the package description should describe when to 
> choose which module.

Thanks, I'll do so.

-- 
Tatsuki Sugiura   mailto:sugi@nemui.org




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Tatsuki Sugiura <sugi@nemui.org>:
Bug#592937; Package libapache2-mod-fastcgi. (Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:54:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Alexander Schories <alexander@schories.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Tatsuki Sugiura <sugi@nemui.org>. (Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:54:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 592937@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alexander Schories <alexander@schories.com>
To: <504132@bugs.debian.org>, <592937@bugs.debian.org>, <thijs@debian.org>
Subject: Why libapache2-mod-fastcgi is still important
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:45:14 +0200
Dear maintainers,


first of all let me thank you for maintaining this important web server
package for the Debian community.

libapache2-mod-fastcgi should be kept as libapache2-mod-fcgid is *NOT* a
proper replacement:

Today almost everybody uses PHP with a bytecode/opcode cacher (eg.
eAccelerator, xcache, apc,..). Opcode cachers, however, are sadly not able
to share the cache across FastCGI or FCGI processes. Means, for each new
PHP process the same opcode cache is built and filled up in the server’s
RAM. This is not only filling up the servers RAM with redundant data but is
actually ruining the performance of any opcode cacher and therefore all the
served web sites.

Luckily PHP is capable of playing “process manager” and a single PHP
process can spawn several children to handle requests. This way the parent
PHP process can instantiate the opcode cache and its children can share it.
Both libapache2-mod-fcgid and libapache2-mod-fastcgi can be told to limit
the number of PHP processes to 1 per user. The PHP process can then be told
how many children to spawn. 

But unfortunately libapache2-mod-fcgid will only send 1 single request per
process. The fact that PHP spawns its own children is completely ignored by
libapache2-mod-fcgid. So using libapache2-mod-fcgid we could only handle
one concurrent PHP request at a time. Obviously this is not good at all
since any longer running request would easily block multiple smaller
requests. 

libapache2-mod-fastcgi on the contrary will send multiple simultaneous
requests to a single PHP process if the PHP process itself has enough
children that can handle it. 

This is the reason we must keep libapache2-mod-fastcgi to achieve our goal
of one cache per user.


@ Tatsuki 

I am sure many users are as happy as i am that you maintain the package
for the community. However, almost 2 years have passed since bug report
#504132 that includes a working, common patch for the issue. Since then –
means over 2 years – you haven’t even replied once in that bug report
thread. If you are not capable or not willing to maintain this package any
longer i'll honestly be glad to help you.

Thank you very much once again


Alexander Schories
Tuebingen, Germany







Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Tatsuki Sugiura <sugi@nemui.org>:
Bug#592937; Package libapache2-mod-fastcgi. (Thu, 14 Feb 2013 20:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Christophe GUILLOUX <christophe@guilloux.info>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Tatsuki Sugiura <sugi@nemui.org>. (Thu, 14 Feb 2013 20:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 592937@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christophe GUILLOUX <christophe@guilloux.info>
To: <592937@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: libapache2-mod-fastcgi needed for php-fpm
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:49:28 +0100
Since php-fpm is now included in wheezy, the module 
libapache2-mod-fastcgi is usefull if we want php-fpm and apache together 
(and not nginx for example) because there is the directive 
FastCgiExternalServer. Could you add it to wheezy ?

Regards
-- 
Christophe GUILLOUX




Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Thu Apr 17 13:42:51 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.