On Apr 9, 2006, at 03:34, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
As I investigated this one thing came up to my mind:
If you use the proxy in the way described above the '*' worker will
be used which
will be created automatically. Having the generic '*' available is
a good thing, BUT
this is not optimal from the performance point of view in these
situations as the '*'
worker has changing remote addresses and thus does not benefit from
keepalives to the
backend as much as it could. OTOH ProxyPass which creates explicit
workers does not
know regular expressions and is not well suited for more complex
situations. The only
other way to create a worker for a defined target is to add a
BalancerMember to a
balanced backend.
So what about adding a directive called ProxyAddWorker that just
defines a worker?
This would enable the following configuration:
Listen 192.168.100.22:80
ProxyAddWorker http://192.168.100.66:8099/ max=10
ProxyAddWorker http://127.0.0.1:8080/ max=20
<VirtualHost 192.168.100.22:80>
ServerName www.domain.com
RewriteEngine On
RewriteRule ^/external/(.*) http://
192.168.100.66:8099/$1 [P]
RewriteRule ^/(.*) http://127.0.0.1:8080/
$1 [P]
</VirtualHost>
Of course ProxyAddWorker should not be mandatory. If the worker is
not defined
the '*' worker should still be used.
You can get the same effect by using BalancerMember, right?
RewriteRule ^/external/(.*) balancer://external/$1 [P]
RewriteRule ^/(.*) balancer://main/$1 [P]
<Proxy balancer://external>
BalancerMember http://192.168.100.66:8099/ max=10
</Proxy>
<Proxy balancer://main>
BalancerMember http://127.0.0.1:8080/$1 max=20
</Proxy>
This is probably good enough, and it's also more flexible in that I
could have multiple workers for one proxy destination (maybe to
different web apps at different URIs on the same server) with
different settings.
It might be good to change the names of these, though, e.g.,
BalancerMember -> ProxyWorker, and perhaps Proxy -> ProxySet, so they
don't sound so "load-balancer" loaded (pun intended). :) (Then
balancer maybe should be proxy or set as well.)
I think a more important new feature would be to make 'max' be the
absolute max number of requests Apache will make to backends, not
just the max per process. It's quite confusing the way it is :
( (But I understand you mentioned this is a difficult change.)
Btw, Ruediger, if you ever happen to come by Beijing (where I'm now),
beers are on me for as long as you like :)
Rgds,
Bjorn
