> switch to a lightweight proxy + httpd on port 80. i like nginx > because its had much fewer critical bugs than lighttpd. others like > lighty. either will be fine - they'll free up apache to deal with > content generation and you'll see a ginormous performance boost off > that . you could use squid or pound for similar tasks, but they're a > PITA to configure and maintain
Must disagree with you about pound http://www.apsis.ch/pound/index_html being a PITA to configure and maintain. Pound is really easy to configure, fast as all hell, and just never goes down. I've been using it for about 3 years now and I've never ever had a problem with it. Just a point of clarification, with reference to this email: http://marc.info/?l=apache-modperl&m=117595808501296&w=2 (File Uploads using MP2 best practises): is it reasonable to serve your static files from a mod_perl server, as long as you have a proxy/pound/squid in front? My understanding is that the cost of using your mod_perl server to serve static files is the amount of time that a slow request would tie them up. However, if your requests are all fast, because your proxy handles the slow part, then this ceases to be an issue. Am I correct in this assumption? I have a bunch of mod_perl servers behind a single pound proxy (plus failover), and they share the uploaded images via NFS currently, although I'm considering moving to iSCSI with OCFS2 when I am convinced of its stability. Any views on this? thanks Clint
