Henri Gomez wrote:
Important point in load balancing will be to collect CPU load (job
load) from the remote.
We often make the mistake to split requests between servers as if it
cost the same CPU power (or cpu load) for each of them, but in Java /
J2EE some requests could be more CPU/IO/DB
I have a problem with the bundled PCRE that I am not sure how to
resolve. Basically, in a module I need to access more functionality
than provided by the Apache PCRE wrapper. (More specifically, I need
to perform matching against strings that are not NULL-terminated.) I
can do this if I have the
I have had a need for this functionality in one application or other for a while now and have been researching various means of acheiving it without actually coding.mod_backhand (
www.backhand.org) which seems to be an abandoned project was very promising a few years back.I think, section 3.3 of
On Mon 19.06.2006 07:07, Jeff Trawick wrote:
If httpd *developers* are interested, we should decide what type of
processing is acceptable/required first and worry about whether it can
be fitted into apr second. As I recall from the last discussion of this
perhaps 15 months ago, most all of the
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:39:29AM +0100, Ivan Ristic wrote:
I have a problem with the bundled PCRE that I am not sure how to
resolve. Basically, in a module I need to access more functionality
than provided by the Apache PCRE wrapper. (More specifically, I need
to perform matching against
Hello all,
I have a minor patch to mod_proxy_balancer that I would like to get
applied. The patch adds some environment vars to balancer requests to
export info on the chosen route so that it possible to control sticky
sessions entirely from the reverse proxy instead of modifying the
backend
It depends on where the real bottleneck is.
Most of the time, if you are unable to cope with the volume of incoming
CGI requests, its because your CGIs themselves are slow to start.
For example, if your CGIs are coded in Perl, just starting them can
take a long time, which is independent of
On 6/20/06, Alexander Lazic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon 19.06.2006 07:07, Jeff Trawick wrote:
If httpd *developers* are interested, we should decide what type of
processing is acceptable/required first and worry about whether it can
be fitted into apr second. As I recall from the last
On 6/20/06, Brian Rectanus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a minor patch to mod_proxy_balancer that I would like to get
applied. The patch adds some environment vars to balancer requests to
export info on the chosen route so that it possible to control sticky
sessions entirely from the reverse
On 06/20/2006 08:17 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On 6/20/06, Brian Rectanus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a minor patch to mod_proxy_balancer that I would like to get
applied. The patch adds some environment vars to balancer requests to
export info on the chosen route so that it possible to
Mendonce, Kiran (STSD) wrote:
It depends on where the real bottleneck is.
Most of the time, if you are unable to cope with the volume of incoming
CGI requests, its because your CGIs themselves are slow to start.
For example, if your CGIs are coded in Perl, just starting them can
take a
I am looking into the probable bottlenecks.
Agreed that the worker MPM has its advantages. But for a customer who is
being asked to move to Apache 2.0, we are falling short on the
performance and that makes it hard to sell. Since worker + mod_cgid was
supposed to improve performance, how is it
We tried using mod_cgi with worker. And its very slow. So that's not an
option we have. Currently we have only worker MPM supported on HP-UX
which is why I tried the multiple cgid approach.
I went through some of the archived discussions to see if anybody had
experienced something similar.
Mendonce, Kiran (STSD) wrote:
We tried using mod_cgi with worker. And its very slow. So that's not an
option we have. Currently we have only worker MPM supported on HP-UX
which is why I tried the multiple cgid approach.
Ah. Now it makes sense. My experiences with this have only been on
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On 6/20/06, Alexander Lazic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon 19.06.2006 07:07, Jeff Trawick wrote:
If httpd *developers* are interested, we should decide what type of
processing is acceptable/required first and worry about whether it can
be fitted into apr second. As I
15 matches
Mail list logo
