Although mod_proxy is a nice module with many features, I would recommend something like pound doing the proxying & load balancing. It's more light and faster, plus you have the added advantage of keeping your webservers in a local network. If you want something with more features lookup squid, but I've had best results with pound using apache2 worker for static content and apache2 prefork for modperl2 apps on different servers.
On 10/19/07, Jozef Kosoru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 15:03:46 -0400, Perrin Harkins wrote: > > On 10/16/07, Mark Maunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This server has no proxy in front of it and only serves mod_perl > > > requests. Static content is loaded from another server with a > > > different hostname. > > > > Even so, if you run prefork, you need a proxy server. The reason is > > explained in detail here: > > > http://www.modperlbook.org/html/12-5-Adding-a-Proxy-Server-in-httpd-Accelerator-Mode.html > > > > In short, running a proxy will usually lower the number of mod_perl > > processes needed significantly. > > If my understanding is correct then if you use Apache 2.2 as a proxy > server with an even MPM you can even use KeepAlive on the front-end. The > question is whether allowing KeepAlive on the backend server will allow > the proxy server to reuse this connection to serve several clients or > will just basically lock this proxy connection for the whole duration of > a single client connection. > > There are some references about "connection pooling" to the backend > server in mod_proxy documenation (ProxyPass Directive section): > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_proxy.html > > But I'm not sure this is relevant to http reverse proxies. > > -- > jozef kosoru > http://zyzstar.kosoru.com >
