Re: Server questions
I always say, buy the best you can afford. Then again, consider how many Linux PC you can have for the price of the Sun. Run those PCs in a web farm or cluster and that Sun can't match the processing power and speed. Michael Hyman wrote: Hi guys, I have a dilemma that I need input on. If you were to buy machines to be used as dedicated web servers, which would you go with? Option 1. A Sun SunFire 280R with 2 Ultra 3 processors and 4GB RAM. Run Solaris 9 Option 2. PC-server with 2 ~2.8GHZ Xeon processors and 8GB RAM. Run Linux The prices are worlds apart and I think I will get more bang for the buck with PC. The systems will connect to an Oracle server, via SQL*Net and server both dynamic and static content along with providing download files up to 1GB in size. The files will be stored locally. What I want to understand is which machine will be faster, be able to handle more peak loading, have a longer lifespan yet be upgradeable for a reasonable price. In the benchmarking we have done, we run out of Ram before CPU using Apache 1.3.27 and Mod_perl, so we will heavily load the machines with RAM. I have years of experience with Solaris and SunOS, and little with Linux, but the learning curve seems small and easily handled. It seems to me that Linux is more customizable than Solaris, but then Solaris comes pretty well tuned and does not always need much tweaking. Apache and all of our software components support both Solaris and Linux, so we can go either way as far as that goes. I think it comes down to a simple formula of which option gets us the most peak and sustained performance for the least amount of money. So, I am looking for some input as to which way you might go in my positions. Thanks in advance for the help!! Regards...Michael
Re: Server questions
Absolutely. In this case, the cluster actually acts like a load balancing solution. Michael Hyman wrote: I am not familiar with clustering Would you run a mod_perl based web site on a cluster? Isn't the point of a cluster to make a group of machines appear to be one? If so, how is that beneficial for web services? Thanks...Michael - Original Message - From: Dzuy Nguyen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Modperl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:19 PM Subject: Re: Server questions I always say, buy the best you can afford. Then again, consider how many Linux PC you can have for the price of the Sun. Run those PCs in a web farm or cluster and that Sun can't match the processing power and speed. Michael Hyman wrote: Hi guys, I have a dilemma that I need input on. If you were to buy machines to be used as dedicated web servers, which would you go with? Option 1. A Sun SunFire 280R with 2 Ultra 3 processors and 4GB RAM. Run Solaris 9 Option 2. PC-server with 2 ~2.8GHZ Xeon processors and 8GB RAM. Run Linux The prices are worlds apart and I think I will get more bang for the buck with PC. The systems will connect to an Oracle server, via SQL*Net and server both dynamic and static content along with providing download files up to 1GB in size. The files will be stored locally. What I want to understand is which machine will be faster, be able to handle more peak loading, have a longer lifespan yet be upgradeable for a reasonable price. In the benchmarking we have done, we run out of Ram before CPU using Apache 1.3.27 and Mod_perl, so we will heavily load the machines with RAM. I have years of experience with Solaris and SunOS, and little with Linux, but the learning curve seems small and easily handled. It seems to me that Linux is more customizable than Solaris, but then Solaris comes pretty well tuned and does not always need much tweaking. Apache and all of our software components support both Solaris and Linux, so we can go either way as far as that goes. I think it comes down to a simple formula of which option gets us the most peak and sustained performance for the least amount of money. So, I am looking for some input as to which way you might go in my positions. Thanks in advance for the help!! Regards...Michael
Re: Load balancers
I've developed an embedded (Linux) load balancer solution. It's small form factor, runs on 8MB flash minimum, no hard drive, no fan so no wories about hard drive failure. It is LVS NAT (L4) based with configurable monitoring service. It load balances any port you want. I've deployed it to load balance web servers, mail server, etc. One of the busier sites is using it to load balance 6 web servers with 5M average hits a day. They've had twice that traffic and the load balancer seems to be fine. LVS says it can balance up to 24 servers. Cost $500. John Siracusa wrote: That's for all the info so far. To answer some questions, hardware is a cost issue right now. It's somewhat scary that $3,200 was a reasonable price several years ago, but I suppose it could be worse. We will investigate further. The mod_rewrite solutions lack dead server detection, and that's something I'd rather not try to roll on my own, especially after seeing how well (or not, actually) existing software solutions do. But I've added it to the list. We're investigating LVS right now. It's kind of disappointing to hear that the mod_perl solution it probably not feasible. Perl solutions are always more fun to implement ;) We chose pound over pen, but we may revisit pen again. I suspect we will have similar problems with our expected load, however. Whackamole, fun name aside, does not seem to be what we need. We don't need the caching part of Squid, and I wasn't aware it did load balancing too. I'll check it out. Thanks for all the info, and please feel free to send me more, especially if there's some gem of a software load balancer out there somewhere... :) -John
Re: Redundancy with 2 web servers
Title: Redundancy with 2 web servers You might want to look into a load balancer solution such as Linux Virtual Server http://www.LinuxVirtualServer.org/ Heiss, Christian wrote: 30014ACC2301D611A655000629899646EDBC@fs01"> Hello, Does anybody can help me how to create redundancy with 2 intranet web servers? Maybe anybody has experience with a technician to build this, like what kind of box (RedHat, SuSE, Debian, ..?) I'm absolutely free in my decisions how to create it. Only the result matches. If server "A" fails, server "B" have to do the work, and maybe there is a technique to mirror also the websites? Thanks for ur help Christian
Re: [OT] Perl vs. PHP..... but where is mod_perl?
What do you expect from (PHP) amateurs? Apparently Perl is too
complicated for them to comprehend,
never mind mod_perl.
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
allan == allan juul [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
allan odd yes, they are up to date it seems
allan head('http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19716.html')
allan returns:
allan Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) PHP/4.2.2 mod_perl/1.27
allan bad article BTW IMHO
allan ./allan
Heh. They really *don't* understand even what they have.
Here's the source to part of the page I got during signup:
META HTTP-EQUIV=refresh content=30;URL=Apache::Cookie=SCALAR(0x8974a94)
Thank you for registering, merlyn.
p
Your registration is now complete.
p
You will now be taken back to the page you were on before the sign-up process.
br
Or you can click a href=Apache::Cookie=SCALAR(0x8974a94)here/a to return quicker.
p
Regards,
br
NewsFactor team
Heh! Apache::Cookie=SCALAR(0x) Even in the refresh header!
That's just too funny.
Re: default page
Try DirectoryIndex. adam nelson wrote: I have a script that needs to be run when some one goes to the site: www.mysite.com/ it seems like the different ways that I've tried simply run the script through the normal cgi scenario without using perl-handler. Am I missing something obvious with httpd.conf?
Re: Fw: Re: Cookies and IE in mod_perl
There are different security levels that must be set. You can also specifically tell the browser to accept all cookies from a particular domain. There is an article on MS site about this. I forgot what it was. You can probably search for it on google. Frank Wiles wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 18:52:14 -0500 Jesse and Rebecca Stay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone had any issues in getting cookies to work with IE using mod_perl? I have tried using both CGI::Cookie and Apache::Cookie, and in both instances it works just fine under Netscape, but on IE it doesn't even try to set the cookie. Any ideas? What are you expire times on your cookies? We ran into a situation where I work that all of the Windows machines were in the wrong time zoneand with a 2 hour expire, IE would not set the cookie because it thought it was already expired. Netscape would however set the cookie anyway.This may not be your problem, but it may be something to think about. - Frank Wiles [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://frank.wiles.org -
Re: Mistaken identity problem with cookie
Perrin Harkins wrote:
002801c1b63b$2563aea0$18020c0a@PerriHar">
I have a mysterious "mistaken identity" problem that I have not beenable to solve.
There are two common sources of this problem. One is an ID generationsystem that is not unique enough. Another is a bug in your code withglobals (see the section of the Guide about debugging with httpd -X).You could be having problems with a proxy on their end, but most proxies aresmart about this stuff.- Perrin
I've debugged the problem and I don't think these are the reasons.
1. I've compared the ID's of the mistaken identity parties involved and they're
not the same.
2. I don't think it's a global vairable issue. Basically, I just grab the
cookie by $r-header_in('Cookie')
and decrypt it. Besides, if it's global then the "mistaken" ID's should
be from anywhere randomly.
There is this nagging fact that the parties involved are from the same ISP's
i.e. user A1 and A2 are
from foo.com, user B1 and B2 are from bar.com, etc. These ISP's are small
operations. I'm pretty
convinced that the problem is on their end. My theory is that these proxies
may have cached the
cookie with an IP address which they provide their clients.
Dzuy
Re: Mistaken identity problem with cookie
Perrin Harkins wrote:
009001c1b65b$068df3d0$18020c0a@PerriHar">
2. I don't think it's a global vairable issue. Basically, I just grabthe cookie by $r-header_in('Cookie')and decrypt it.
It's what you do after that that matters.
All it does is get the user login info and displays it. The variable is
local to the short script.
009001c1b65b$068df3d0$18020c0a@PerriHar">
Besides, if it's global then the "mistaken" ID's shouldbe from anywhere randomly.
True, but random may not always look random.
What I meant was it would have happen to any user from any other ISP or domain.
In all cases,
the mistaken ID's originate from the same ISP ([EMAIL PROTECTED] appears as [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
appears as [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on).
009001c1b65b$068df3d0$18020c0a@PerriHar">
There is this nagging fact that the parties involved are from the sameISP's i.e. user A1 and A2 arefrom foo.com, user B1 and B2 are from bar.com, etc.
You aren't using IP or domain as part of your ID generation, are you? Thatwould be bad.
No, just straight encrypt($user_id) as the value of the cookie and decrypt($cookie_str).
009001c1b65b$068df3d0$18020c0a@PerriHar">
- Perrin
Re: Authentication???
Have you looked at Apache::AuthCookie? Ray Recendez wrote: 002101c1b40c$fa6ab930$d4fe97c6@RAYWIN"> I am trying decide which authentication scheme to use with Apache on Solaris. I want to be able to issue cookies and expire them after a set duration. What is the best method/module(s)? And which provides the most documentation on setup and configuration? Thanks, --Ray
[JOB] mod_perl programmer looking for development project
Hi, I am a seasoned web programmer (mod_perl, Perl, PHP) seeking for web development in similar environment. I also manage, amdin systems, web sites, basically an all in one, jack of all trade kind of guy. If interested, please email me for resume. I prefer telecomuting unless you're in the Austin, TX area. Thanks. Dzuy
