Thanks guys for the interesting feedback. @Jacob: My backend application is a combination of webservice ( https://www.mywebsite.com/json?...) for the dynamic content and internal mini-webserver (https://www.mywebsite.com/html/...) serving all static files of the application. The "root" is therefore reserved for the webservice. In the past this concept has been extremely useful (no need of separate webserver). But now I need SSL and loadbalancing so I have to rethink...
Load-balancing needs to be done based on client IP address resp. client cookie/sessionID so I need/like to stick with Pound (I also need Pound to terminate the SSL) as entry. @Roberto: I'm thinking about your https idea (pound <-> varnish <-> pound <-> backend). Why would you need a second Pound instance after varnish? Another solution would also be to invest some dev. time and change my application -> dump the internal web-server serving the static stuff now from a separate apache instance and load-balance only the webservice part... Thanks & cheers, P. 2013/2/23 Roberto Geraldo Pimenta Ribeiro Junior <[email protected]> > I'd like to report that I use pound with varnish in two ways with great > success: > -as the balancer element between varnish and the backends > -as an entry point https to varnish > > When the traffic is http : > -> varnish <-> pound <-> backend > > When the traffic is https : > -> pound <-> varnish <-> pound <-> backend > > I do not use pound only as an entry point to https. I use it as the > element that balances the load to the backends. > Varnish could do that, but there are some advantages of use pound as the > balancer element. > > > > -------- Mensagem original -------- > De : jacob anderson <[email protected]> > Data: > Para: [email protected] > Assunto: RE: [Pound Mailing List] Questions > > > I’ll bite. So Peter, can you just rebind your web application “/html” to > the root of your web server? That would get rid of “/html” and you won’t > have to change your pound configuration or add Varnish in there. You’re not > really URL rewriting per-se. You’re just rebinding the web application to a > new mount point. > > > > If you were changing the https://www.mywebsite/myapplication.html to > something like “/user/domain/myapplication.html” but in the front, keeping > it “/myapplication.html” then you would need a sophisticated rewrite engine. > > > > My $0.02 worth. Keep it simple. > > > > -- Jake > > > > > > *From:* Matthew Bonner [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, February 22, 2013 1:43 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Pound Mailing List] Questions > > > > Hi Peter > > You may wish to consider a Pound - Varnish - web server chain. One option > is to direct all Pound traffic to Varnish and let Varnish route traffic to > backends. > > Varnish gives much flexibility for URL rewriting / backed redirection. And > with a little caching, faster page loads too. :-) > > Cheers, > > Matthew > > On 19/02/2013 6:04 PM, "P. Broennimann" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi there > > > > I am hosting a site (1 pound instance and 5 own load-balanced application > instances behind). Clients would connect > https://www.mywebsite/html/myapplication.html so Pound is terminating the > SSL -> Everything works like a charm. > > > > Now I'd like to have the clients connect > https://www.mywebsite/myapplication.html. I read that I could do this > using a separate URL rewrite engine. > > > > 1) Where would this rewrite engine be placed? Before or after Pound? I am > concerned about where SSL would be terminated. > > 2) Does this have to be a webserver (apache) or are there other smaller > tools available to just do the URL rewriting (I am running Debian)? > > > > Thanks & cheers, > > Peter >
