Hello,
Due to about 200,000 lines of legacy mod_perl code that is written for MP1 and Apache::Request, In order to migrate to mod_perl2 app by app, we have set up a reverse proxy on the same machines.
All mp2 apps run on the main ap2+mp2, any request for a legacy app is proxied to localhost on port 8080 which is listened to by ap1+mp1.
This seems to be working just fine, except I notice that keepalives are being kept between the two apache servers.
My question is, should this be the case? We have keepalives disabled on the externally accessible ap2+mp2 intentionally. Is there any benefit or detriment for using them between the two apaches? I would think that keepalives should be off so that the ap1 instances can be freed to service another request while the reverse proxy is busy feeding slower clients.
That seems to be the case for mod_proxy.
But if you use another proxy which knows how to multiplex connections then keepalive may boost the performance as you will save the overhead of creating the HTTP connections. i.e. the proxy should be able to suck the output of the server, and hand it a new request over keep-alive connection.
I'm not sure though which proxy servers know to handle that.
I remember Theo has mentioned that I think with some of the related to Spread (spread.org) products. But I don't remember which.
__________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
-- Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/ Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html
