On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 15:26, Stas Bekman wrote: > > 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.
Thanks, we are using mod_proxy, and even interestingly enough mod_spread. Since we are using the mp2 instance in the front end apache, using a plain proxy server would not be possible, so I would be interested if anyone knows of a mod_proxy replacement that does this sort of multiplexing, I'd appreciate the cloo. I disabled the keepalives between the two. Thanks Stas (and to Perrin). > __________________________________________________________________ > 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 -- Richard F. Rebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] t. 212.239.0000
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
