On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> +1... By the way, I'm working on a minor patch that works around > that "stupid" encoding of '/' requirement... > Did you give any thought to bypassing the normal proxy parsing altogether? For mod_authnz_fcgi I started by using a copy of ap_proxy_canon_netloc() to parse the backend address, but I think I'll just use a few regexes (literal IPv6 address+port, any other address+port, and eventually socket= when AF_UNIX is implemented). I don't have access to proxy APIs and there's just too much baggage with what ap_proxy_canon_netloc() has to do for proxy to bring it along only for fcgi addresses. > On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 03:51:20PM -0500, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > > So I'm tasked with making httpd hold its own weight better against nginx > > as a reverse proxy to a local service. Unfortunately, nginx supports UDS > > and we don't quite yet. I've come across a bug that seems easy enough to > > fix, but I am wondering if there's a better way. Thoughts are welcome. > > > > With the currently proposed UDS support in mod_proxy, first requests > > always seem fine but subsequent requests for the worker fail (attempted > > DNS lookup when none should be done). I wouldn't have +1'ed had I > > realized this at the time, but I have a proposed fix... > > > > --- httpd-2.4.6-UDS/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c 2013-08-09 > > 15:12:23.000000000 -0500 > > +++ httpd-2.4.6/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c 2013-08-09 > > 15:15:33.000000000 -0500 > > @@ -2127,7 +2127,7 @@ > > */ > > > > if (!conn->hostname || !worker->s->is_address_reusable || > > - worker->s->disablereuse || strncmp(conn->hostname, "socket=", > > 7) == 0) { > > + worker->s->disablereuse) { > > if (proxyname) { > > conn->hostname = apr_pstrdup(conn->pool, proxyname); > > conn->port = proxyport; > > > > I haven't spent a ton of time on this so I'm wondering... This seems > > simple enough, but isn't there a place we could do this once to avoid > > having to execute the same logic (substring and path decode) on all > > subsequent requests? I'd also much rather not have to do a string > > comparison on all subsequent hits... > > > > If I don't hear anything otherwise, I'll just commit this and add it to > > the backport proposal next week or so > > > > > > P.S. > > My simple tests with 100 concurrent users for a total of 1,000,000 > > requests yielded the following numbers (with the above patch applied). > > The backend supports about 20k requests/sec. This seems to be a mighty > > compelling case for UDS... > > > > nginx UDS: 16001.28 > > nginx UDS: 18138.94 > > nginx UDS: 15499.64 > > > > Apache UDS: 16348.70 > > Apache UDS: 14580.92 > > Apache UDS: 15211.97 > > > > Apache TCP: 11859.46 > > (only got one in) > > > > -- > > Daniel Ruggeri > > -- > =========================================================================== > Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ > "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/