Vivek Khera wrote:
"DH" == Dave Hodgkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DH I'm currently arguing about this very thing with my BOFH - I think we
DH should have, effectively, an SSI apache and a mod_perl apache, he's
I tend to call mod_perl scripts from my SSI's, so it makes sense for
me
Hello Matt,
÷åòâåðã, 27 àïðåëÿ 2000 ã., you wrote:
doing - and the TCP listen queue will hold a few more
connections if you are slightly short of backends.
MS Is there any benefit of mod_proxy over a real proxy front end like "Oops"?
I don't think so, at least for "accelerator" application
Vivek Khera wrote:
"MS" == Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
doing - and the TCP listen queue will hold a few more
connections if you are slightly short of backends.
MS Is there any benefit of mod_proxy over a real proxy front end like "Oops"?
Not being familiar with "Oops",
"DH" == Dave Hodgkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DH I'm currently arguing about this very thing with my BOFH - I think we
DH should have, effectively, an SSI apache and a mod_perl apache, he's
I tend to call mod_perl scripts from my SSI's, so it makes sense for
me to keep them on the same
Matt List,
Is there any benefit of mod_proxy over a real proxy front end like "Oops"?
This is a good question..., the only answer I've come up with thus far
from reading the new-httpd devel list is compelling though. Here's
what people there said in response to folks trying to kill
Right, but the difference with Oops is it's a threaded server, and while I
couldn't get it to work (the author appears to be Russian, and his idea of
documentation is "oops.cfg is easy to understand. Just edit it"), it looks
like it should be extremely quick, even if serving static images
According to Matt Sergeant:
Is there any benefit of mod_proxy over a real proxy front end like "Oops"?
I've run squid as an alternative and did not see any serious
differences except that the caching was defeated about 10% of the
time even on images, apparently because the clients were hitting
"MS" == Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
doing - and the TCP listen queue will hold a few more
connections if you are slightly short of backends.
MS Is there any benefit of mod_proxy over a real proxy front end like "Oops"?
Not being familiar with "Oops", I can say that I use
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Matt Sergeant wrote:
Is there any benefit of mod_proxy over a real proxy front end like "Oops"?
There's a big study of proxy servers posted at
http://bakeoff.ircache.net/N02/. There are some expensive ones with
dedicated hardware that perform well. Of course, there are
Modperlers,
Since we've had a little spirited debate on this issue..., I think it
might be nice to go into some detail on this. Well... here are my
ideas.
As Perrin has brought up, if your doing a lot of queries, and that's
the primary focus of your perl scripts, then parallelism is key.
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So, overall..., I think that you should consider how many modperl
processes you want completely seperately from how many modproxy
processes you want.
Apache takes care of these details for you. All you need to
do is configure MaxClients around the absolute
11 matches
Mail list logo
