11

I have searched for an answer but cannot seem to find anything substantial related to this question.

Should one use mod_proxy_fcgi or mod_fastcgi with php-fpm on Apache2.4?

Are there any differences in terms of security and performance? Any recommendations?

Thanks in advance for any help.

1 Answer 1

14

mod_proxy_fcgi, which is newly available in Apache 2.4, is just for this type of use case. The Apache wiki entry for PHP-FPM has some good guidance to get started.

The mod_proxy_fcgi documentation also includes specific examples for setting up PHP-FPM and the PHP documentation also has helpful information.

On the other hand, mod_fastcgi is notoriously difficult to set up and a memory hog. Additionally, mod_fcgi doesn’t support spawned CGI servers. Because PHP-FPM is managed by itself, not by Apache, mod_fcgi isn’t the best choice.

10
  • This explains why nothing was working when I attempted to set up mod_proxy_fcgi, I have Apache2.4.7 and a habit of using unix sockets. :) Any comments on performance? I know mod_fastcgi uses memory but is it faster? Commented Jun 10, 2016 at 9:10
  • speed should not be an issue, although using sockets is probably more efficient; probably more important to be able to spawn PHP-FPM processes
    – Colt
    Commented Jun 10, 2016 at 9:24
  • So I will be sticking to mod_fastcgi because it seems the more logical choice. Thank you very much for your answer. Commented Jun 10, 2016 at 9:28
  • 2
    I think the right answer is mod_proxy_fcgi - the spawning capability is important for efficiency
    – Colt
    Commented Jun 10, 2016 at 9:30
  • 1
    mod_proxy_fcgi's benefit, esp. in Debian systems, is that you can simply install the php-fpm package and run the sudo a2enconf commands that it tells you to run, and you're done, no extra Apache configuration is required. Commented Jul 24, 2020 at 10:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .