PHP, Apache, Mongrel cluster

Stefanita rares Dumitrescu lists at
Thu Jan 17 18:48:53 MSK 2008

Lance Ditkins wrote:
> Cliff Wells wrote:
>> Why not just use PHP+FCGI?  Apache adds a lot of overhead with little
>> apparent gain in this configuration.
>> Cliff
> The Rails apps still use PHP for a couple of tasks (file uploads) and 
> there are 3-4 PHP/static sites.  My understanding (perhaps  I'm wrong) 
> is that I would need a PHP/Fastcgi instance for each site/app, which 
> would presumably be more overhead than the single Apache instance.  Is 
> this not the case?  Thanks for the response!

actually as far as i have seen it in my config, the nginx/php/apache 
proxy would work good, only when you have few php applications, and a 
lot of static content. so let's say 2 3 php pages, that are being 
accessed once in a while, and you can work it out with apache.

but, in the case of using constantly php, i would suggest going for 
php-fastcgi/nginx. why ? it makes pretty much no sense in my opinion 
having nginx sending the php to apache, then serving it, when it could 
do it all by itself.

one note though, when using php-fastcgi, i would suggest using 
lighthttpd's spawn-fcgi program. i had issues with the init scripts 
found for php-fascgi.

so yeah it took me a few, but i got nginx/php-fastcgi running. with 
lighty spawn-fcgi. everything looks pretty cool/fast.
Posted via

More information about the nginx mailing list