(jacob.gold)

155 points feep | 2 comments | 04 Jul 25 13:16 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Show context

sugarpimpdorsey ◴[04 Jul 25 14:18 UTC] No.44464798[source]▶

Surprised with the choice of Apache. There are better choices for serving CGI nowadays. The only reason for still running Apache is you have legacy cruft that requires Apache (like .htaccess).

replies(5): >>44464841 #>>44464842 #>>44465210 #>>44466147 #>>44469039 #

1. mrweasel ◴[04 Jul 25 14:24 UTC] No.44464841[source]▶

>>44464798 #

Apache is still a solid option. It does everything, works with everything and is easy to configure. Performance is perfectly fine for ~99% of everything.

replies(1): >>44464964 #

2. chgs ◴[04 Jul 25 14:37 UTC] No.44464964[source]▶

>>44464841 (TP) #

I host 1200 vhosts off apache as an authenticating proxy, and run Al sorts of random scripts.

This is all internal use though, I don’t need to scale to hundreds of concurrent users let alone thousands. Apache and cgi bin is fine.

↑

Serving 200M requests per day with a CGI-bin