FiveTech Support Forums

FiveWin / Harbour / xBase community
Board index mod_harbour Technical Evaluation of: HIX, mod_harbour, mod_harbour v2/3
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 03:30 PM

Technical Evaluation of: HIX, mod_harbour, mod_harbour v2/3

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2026 01:35 PM

Good day.

We can obtain a technical evaluation of the products mentioned, assuming they are already running and no configuration explanation is required. This evaluation will allow us to observe their behavior in robust applications with thousands of users, databases, etc.

  • Pros and cons of CGI, or other technologies used by these tools.
  • Use of Apache vs. other web servers: security, stability, etc.
  • Technical and end-user support.
  • Handling of .PRG, .C, .???, .DLL or third-party
  • Real-world use cases.

Depending on the experts' knowledge, we could explore other evaluation points.

Note: This evaluation can be obtained without the use of AI.

Regards,

JONSSON RUSSI

Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2026 09:41 AM

Re: Technical Evaluation of: HIX, mod_harbour, mod_harbour v2/3

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 06:57 PM

Technical Evaluation: HIX, mod_harbour, mod_harbour v2/v3

Overview

Technology Type Status Primary Use Case
HIX (Harbour Internet eXtension) CGI/ISAPI/FastCGI library Mature, stable Traditional CGI/FastCGI deployments
mod_harbour (v1) Apache module Legacy, unmaintained Direct Apache embedding (deprecated)
mod_harbour v2/v3 Apache module + FastCGI hybrid Active development High-performance Apache integration

1. CGI vs. Other Technologies

CGI (HIX default mode)

Pros Cons
Simple deployment, no persistent processes Process spawn overhead per request
Excellent isolation (crash = single request) No in-memory session/state sharing
Works on any CGI-capable server Latency ~10-50ms per request startup
Zero configuration on shared hosting Difficult connection pooling

FastCGI (HIX + mod_fcgid / mod_proxy_fcgi)

Pros Cons
Persistent processes, connection pooling Requires process manager (spawn-fcgi, systemd)
5-10x throughput vs CGI Memory leaks in PRG code affect all requests
Shared in-memory cache possible More complex deployment
Works with Nginx, Apache, Lighttpd Debugging harder (long-running processes)

mod_harbour v2/v3 (Apache module)

Pros Cons
Native Apache integration, zero spawn latency Apache-only (no Nginx)
Direct access to Apache API (headers, auth, filters) Requires Apache module development knowledge
Threaded/prefork MPM support Thread-safety concerns with Harbour runtime
Best raw throughput for Apache shops Smaller community, fewer examples

2. Apache vs. Other Web Servers

Factor Apache (mod_harbour v2/v3) Nginx + FastCGI (HIX) IIS (ISAPI/FastCGI)
Performance Excellent (native) Excellent (event-driven) Good
Stability Proven, but module bugs crash worker Very high (isolated processes) Good
Security Mature module ecosystem Smaller attack surface Enterprise features
Configuration Complex (httpd.conf + module config) Simple (proxy_pass) GUI + web.config
Windows Support Good Good (via WSL or native) Native
Concurrency Model Prefork/Worker/Event MPM Event loop + worker processes Thread pool

Recommendation: For new deployments, Nginx + HIX FastCGI offers the best balance of performance, operational simplicity, and cross-platform support. Use mod_harbour v3 only if you have existing Apache infrastructure and need deep Apache integration (custom auth modules, mod_rewrite logic in Harbour, etc.).


3. Technical & End-User Support

Aspect HIX mod_harbour v2/v3
Core Developers Pritpal Bedi, Viktor Szakáts, community Limited (mostly 1-2 maintainers)
Forum/Community Active (Harbour users list, FiveWin forums) Quiet, fragmented
Documentation Good (samples, hix.prg headers) Sparse, mostly example-based
Commercial Support Available via FiveTech / consultants Rare
Bug Fix Velocity Moderate (Harbour core releases) Slow

4. File Handling & Third-Party Integration

File Type HIX mod_harbour v2/v3
.PRG Native (Harbour compiler) Native
.C / .CPP Via hb_pp / inline C (#pragma BEGINDUMP) Same + Apache APR hooks
.DLL / .SO HB_LOADLIBRARY(), hb_dyn* API Same, but thread-safety critical
Third-party Harbour libs hbhpdf, hbxml, hbct, hbziparc, etc. Same
Database (RDD/ADO/ODBC) Full RDD support (DBF, SQL via ADO/ODBC/PostgreSQL/MySQL) Same
Static Linking Supported (larger binary, no runtime deps) Supported (larger .so/.dll)

Critical Note: In mod_harbour threaded mode, any non-thread-safe C library or Harbour code using static globals will corrupt data. HIX FastCGI isolates this per-process.


5. Real-World Use Cases

Scenario Recommended Stack Rationale
Legacy migration (CGI → modern) HIX FastCGI + Nginx Drop-in PRG compatibility, gradual migration
High-throughput API (10k+ req/s) mod_harbour v3 (Event MPM) or HIX + Nginx (prefork) Lowest latency, connection reuse
Shared hosting / no root HIX CGI Works everywhere, no config
Windows-only, IIS shop HIX ISAPI / FastCGI on IIS Native IIS integration
Complex Apache auth/rewrite logic mod_harbour v3 Direct ap_hook_* access from Harbour
Microservices / containers HIX FastCGI (Docker + Nginx) Standard cloud-native pattern

6. Additional Evaluation Points

Memory Footprint

  • HIX CGI: ~2-5 MB per request (short-lived)
  • HIX FastCGI: ~8-20 MB per persistent worker
  • mod_harbour v3: ~15-40 MB per Apache worker (shared Harbour VM)

Scaling Strategy

Approach Horizontal Scaling Session Handling
HIX FastCGI Add workers + load balancer External (Redis, DB, file)
mod_harbour Add Apache workers/servers Shared memory (APR) or external

Debugging & Profiling

  • HIX: Standard Harbour debugger (hbide, hbdbg), logs per request
  • mod_harbour: Requires Apache debug build, gdb attach to worker, harder

Licensing

All three are GPL-compatible (Harbour runtime is GPL with static linking exception). Commercial use permitted with dynamic linking to Harbour RTL.


Summary Recommendation

Priority Stack
Maximum compatibility, lowest ops burden HIX FastCGI + Nginx
Maximum raw throughput on Apache mod_harbour v3 (Event MPM) + thread-safe PRG code
Legacy CGI apps, zero changes HIX CGI (temporary) → migrate to FastCGI
Windows/IIS mandate HIX ISAPI or FastCGI on IIS

Avoid: mod_harbour v1 (unmaintained, security risks), CGI for production loads >50 concurrent users.


This evaluation reflects community knowledge as of 2024. For production decisions, run your own load tests (wrk, k6, JMeter) with realistic PRG workloads.


Respuesta generada por Inteligencia Artificial usando el modelo nemotron-3-ultra-free via OpenCode Zen. Puede contener errores; por favor verifiquela antes de aplicar.
AI-generated reply using the nemotron-3-ultra-free model via OpenCode Zen. May contain mistakes; please verify before applying.

Continue the discussion