HN Reader

> These days, we have servers with 384 CPU threads. Even a small VM can have 16 CPUs. The CPUs and memory are much faster as well.

With this hardware, if you reach for Kestrel you can easily do a few trillion requests per day. The development experience would be nearly identical - You can leverage the string interpolation operator for a PHP-like experience. LINQ and String.Join() open the door to some very terse HTML template syntax for tables and other nested elements.

The hard part is knowing how to avoid certain landmines in the ecosystem (MVC/Blazor/EF/etc.). The whole thing can live in one top-level program file that is ran on the CLI, but you need to know the magic keywords - "Minimal APIs" - or you will find yourself in the middle of the wrong documentation.

A fastcgi comparison would be interesting

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).

Even back in the 1990s, CGI programs written in C were lightning fast. It just was (is) an error prone environment. Any safer modern alternative like the article's Go program or Nim or whatever not making database connections will be very fast & low latency to localhost - really similar to a CLI utility where you fork & exec. It's not free, but it's not that expensive compared to network latencies then or now.

People/orgs do tend to get kind of addicted to certain technologies that can interact poorly with the one-shot model, though. E.g., high start up cost Python interpreters with a lot of imports are still pretty slow, and people get addicted to that ecosystem and so need multi-shot/persistent alternatives.

The one-shot model in early HTTP was itself a pendulum swing from other concerns, e.g. ftp servers not having enough RAM for 100s of long-lived, often mostly idle logins.

Try an apache tomcat 11 next. You can just dump .jsp files or whole java servlet applications as .war file via ssh and it will just work!

One shared JVM for maximum performance!

It can also share db connection pools, caches, etc. among those applications!

Wow!

The nice thing about CGI is that you don't have to reinvent isolation primitives for multi-tenant use cases. A bug in one request doesn't corrupt another request, due to process isolation. An infinite loop in one request doesn't DoS other requests, due to preemptive scheduling. You can kill long-running requests with rlimit. You can use per-tenant cgroups to fairly allocate resources like memory, CPU and disk/network I/O. You can use namespaces/jails and privilege separation to restrict what a request has access to.

Does anyone know if the benchmarking tool the author uses, plow, avoids coordinated omission (https://www.scylladb.com/2021/04/22/on-coordinated-omission/)? I didn’t see any mention in the docs, and haven’t been able to peruse the source code yet.

I got my start in the CGI era, and it baked into me an extremely strong bias against running short-lived subprocesses for things.

We invented PHP and FastCGI mainly to get away from the performance hit of starting a new process just to handle a web request!

It was only a few years ago that I realized that modern hardware means that it really isn't prohibitively expensive to do that any more - this benchmark gets to 2,000/requests a second, and if you can even get to a few hundred requests a second it's easy enough to scale across multiple instances these days.

I have seen AWS Lambda described as the CGI model reborn and that's a pretty fair analogy.