Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I was doing some research (googling) on the subject, but all I could find were 2-3 year old posts. I'm interested in today's situation. Which do you prefer and why?

share|improve this question

closed as primarily opinion-based by mdpc, Falcon Momot, Bryan, Tim Brigham, Dave M Jul 29 '13 at 17:58

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

up vote 4 down vote accepted

FastCGI is my preference. Not so much because of the technology as much as it just being used on so many shared hosting services. It's also compatible with a lot of different development languages/frameworks such as Django and PHP and works with Apache server, which is highly popular on Unix-based servers.

share|improve this answer

Not 100% on this but my understanding is:

SCGI = easier to implement
FCGI = Better performance

share|improve this answer
why is the performance of FCGI better? – Janus Troelsen Apr 28 '13 at 15:26

FastCGI technically allows duplex‑multiplexing, while SCGI don't (not even one‑way only multiplexing). SCGI is OK for tiny sites with low traffic, where each request is handled fully one at a time upon completion, and in turn.

FastCGI is more common than SCGI, in other words, the FastCGI protocol is more a standard than SCGI is. The date of the last revision of the FastCGI protocol, implies nothing wrong, it's just OK to not update a protocol which does not need so.

If I may, I would just say comparing FastCGI and SCGI, is just like comparing XML and a custom serialization format such as JSON or its LISP variant. Some people complained XML is too much complex, and created their own format, said to be more simple, but which shows to be more complex than XML as things scales a bit in size or complexity. Similarly with FastCGI vs SCGI.

FastCGI is technically more resilient and robust, and that's probably the reason why it is more widely deployed than SCGI.

That said, SCGI is still at least better than CGI (the classic one‑process launch per request).

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.