On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 21:14 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > While using many more times the resources. You obviously have no idea of > the challenges of providing secure web hosting for non-trivial > quantities of web sites. So what do you want to imply would be secure? Apart from that, when you speak of "non-trivial" quantities - I'd probably say that running gazillion websites from different entities on one host is generally a really bad idea. So I don't think your argument really counts that much (assumed I've understood it correctly ;) ). > > FastCGI is just a slightly more fancy way of doing this. > FastCGI is another thing that almost nobody can afford when hosting > a significant number of web sites. Why not? When I've investigated in mod-php vs. cgi vs. fcgi, the fcgi turned out to have roughly the same performance as mod-php (plain cgi of course much worse). In addition: mod-php can only be used with mpm-prefork, as it's not thread safe. So I wouldn't see anything (except XYZ should run insecurely out-of-the-box) which makes mod-php better in any use case than the alternatives. Cheers, Chris.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature