On 7/18/05, Neil Schemenauer  wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 09:53:19PM -0700, Mike Orr wrote:
> > know why they keep saying it's not widely tested.  How wide is "wide"?
>
> We only have direct experience running mod_scgi with Apache 1 on
> high traffic sites.  We also haven't heard many success stories
> regarding mod_scgi for Apache 2, mostly problem reports.  It's hard
> to get a sense widely it is being used.

Fwiw, mod_scgi has been running w/apache2 on unalog.com and
canarydatabase.org since  each began.  unalog.com is getting ~1K
distinct visits daily (according to "visitors") these days, and no
problem it has ever had has been related to mod_scgi or apache2.
canary gets less, but still steady, use, from fewer users, but has not
run into mod_scgi+apache2 problems either.  Actually, neither is using
the latest mod_scgi, or the latest qx, come to think of it.  An
indicator of how well earlier releases have worked (on one hand...).

Still, here's one vote of confidence for the combo on moderate-traffic
sites with modern redhat flavors (centos/wbel/rhel3, rhel4).

  -Dan Chudnov