Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> >>>>> "MS" == Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> doing - and the TCP listen queue will hold a few more
> >> connections if you are slightly short of backends.
>
> MS> Is there any benefit of mod_proxy over a real proxy front end like "Oops"?
>
> Not being familiar with "Oops", I can say that I use mod_proxy as the
> front end so that I can do virtual hosting. Doing this with Squid is
> not so straight-forward (meaning it requires me to spend lots of time
> learning something else to maintain.)
We use squid as the front end proxy for about 180 domains and it works
well. It catches about 50 "stupid redirect" domains, ones that bounce
to a subdirectory of a larger site. We reckon at least 50% of all
traffic is cached, which is to be expected as our sites are heavily
SSI driven and therefore regular html just doesn't cache and nor
should it.
Squid's OK and a lot better than it used to be. If we were running on
less hardware (currently 3 tier: proxy, 2xmod_perl servers, database),
then I'd think hard about using a single, modular apache build
and two instances of apache.
I'm currently arguing about this very thing with my BOFH - I think we
should have, effectively, an SSI apache and a mod_perl apache, he's
going with the KISS principle. Since at the moment we're by no means
constrained by "concurrent" users eating connections to fat servers
and you can always turn off keepalive on apache, I'm leaning towards
KISS too.
--
David Hodgkinson, Technical Director, Sift PLC http://www.sift.co.uk
Editor, "The Highway Star" http://www.deep-purple.com
Dave endorses Yanagisawa saxes, Apache, Perl, Linux, MySQL, emacs, gnus
