On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 05:15, Philip Mak wrote: Is the 'front end' and 'back end' apache servers on the 'same box'? My problme is that I had one web server. and I did the FE and BE bit (BE being on the loop back address). to free up some major resources since mod_perl apache gets huges. I didn't need 20meg process serving up 2K images :) and had about 20 to 30 smaller apache process doing the 'static' content serving.
I'm currently running Apache2 in a development enviroment. Going to be upgradeing my web servers with 2.0. Most sites will work nicly. I have found that the memory resource problem doesn't excist with 2.0 when you compile with 'worker' or fully threaded. I'm running 2 processes of apache and each of htem have like 20 threaded. performce seems good with just running one apache server. didn't do any real load testing, but I'm sure 2.0 is going to blow 1.3.x away. -- Jason > These days, Apache 2 has become the default version of Apache. > > On my site, I run a front end Apache and a back end Apache. > > Front end: Apache 1.x, has mod_accel module which is like mod_proxy, > but downloads all the data from the backend ASAP and frees it up > immediately, so that a slow modem doesn't tie up the backend > > Back end: Apache 1.x with mod_perl > > Here's my question: > > Is it worth upgrading to Apache 2.x for either the front end or back > end? And does Apache 2.x's mod_proxy free up the backend ASAP now? >
