----- Original Message -----
From: "Perrin Harkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ask Bjoern Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: ApacheCon report
> > Mr. Llima must do something I don't, because with real world
> > requests I see a 15-20 to 1 ratio of mod_proxy/mod_perl processes at
> > "my" site. And that is serving <500byte stuff.
>
> I'm not following. Everyone agrees that we don't want to have big
> mod_perl processes waiting on slow clients. The question is whether
> tuning your socket buffer can provide the same benefits as a proxy server
> and the conclusion so far is that it can't because of the lingering close
> problem. Are you saying something different?
>
A tcp close is supposed to require an acknowledgement from the
other end or a fairly long timeout. I don't see how a socket buffer
alone can change this. Likewise for any of the load balancer
front ends that work on the tcp connection level (but I'd like to
be proven wrong about this).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
