Gunther Birznieks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Although I don't have much to add to the conversation, I just wanted to say
that this is one of the most absolutely technically enlightening posts I've
read on the mod_perl list in a while. It's really interesting to finally
clarify this once
Although I don't have much to add to the conversation, I just wanted to say
that this is one of the most absolutely technically enlightening posts I've
read on the mod_perl list in a while. It's really interesting to finally
clarify this once and for all.
Smells like a mod_perl guide
From: "Perrin Harkins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Ask Bjoern Hansen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: ApacheCon report
Mr. Llima must do something I don't, because with real world
requests I se
According to Michael Blakeley:
I'm not following. Everyone agrees that we don't want to have big
mod_perl processes waiting on slow clients. The question is whether
tuning your socket buffer can provide the same benefits as a proxy server
and the conclusion so far is that it
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
I still like the idea of having mod_rewrite in a lightweight
front end, and if the request turns out to be static at that
point there isn't much point in dealing with proxying.
Or if the request is in the proxy cache...
Has anyone tried putting
At 12:00 AM 10/31/2000 -0800, Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Les Mikesell wrote:
Ultimately, I don't see any way around the fact that proxying from one
server to another ties up two processes for that time rather than one, so
if your bottleneck is the number of processes you
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Gunther Birznieks wrote:
As a bonus, if you write your app smart with cache directive
headers, some of the dynamic content can truly be cached by the front-end
server.
We're using this technique now and it really rocks. Great performance.
- Perrin
At 04:13 PM 10/31/00 +0800, Gunther Birznieks wrote:
As a bonus, if you write your app smart with cache directive
headers, some of the dynamic content can truly be cached by the front-end
server.
Gunther,
Can you give some details? I have co-branded template driven content that
is
At 10:43 AM 10/31/2000 -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
At 04:13 PM 10/31/00 +0800, Gunther Birznieks wrote:
As a bonus, if you write your app smart with cache directive
headers, some of the dynamic content can truly be cached by the front-end
server.
Gunther,
Can you give some details? I have
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
[...]
- Don't use a proxy server for doling out bytes to slow clients; just set
the buffer on your sockets high enough to allow the server to dump the
page and move on. This has been discussed here before, notably in this
post:
[EMAIL
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
[...]
- Don't use a proxy server for doling out bytes to slow clients; just set
the buffer on your sockets high enough to allow the server to dump the
page and move on. This has been discussed
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
[...]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">http://forum.swarthmore.edu/epigone/modperl/grerdbrerdwul/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mr. Llima must do something I don't, because with real world
requests I see a 15-20 to 1 ratio of mod_proxy/mod_perl processes at
"my"
- Original Message -
From: "Perrin Harkins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Ask Bjoern Hansen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: ApacheCon report
Mr. Llima must do something I don't, because with real world
re
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Tim Sweetman wrote:
Matt Sergeant wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Tim Sweetman wrote:
In no particular order, and splitting hairs some of the time...
Sounded like mod_backhand was best used NOT in the same Apache as a phat
application server (eg. mod_perl),
- Original Message -
From: "Perrin Harkins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here's what I recall Theo saying (relative to mod_perl):
- Don't use a proxy server for doling out bytes to slow clients; just set
the buffer on your sockets high enough to allow the server to dump the
page and move on.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Les Mikesell wrote:
Ultimately, I don't see any way around the fact that proxying from one
server to another ties up two processes for that time rather than one, so
if your bottleneck is the number of processes you can run before running
out of RAM, this is not a good
Matt Sergeant wrote:
http://modperl.sergeant.org/ApacheConRep.txt
Enjoy.
Thanks for that Matt, I did enjoy it - IBM's party coninciding with Suns
keynote made me chukle ;-)
I eventually could not make the conferance due to a nasty deadline
Did Doug mention when mod_perl 2.0 would /
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Greg Cope wrote:
Matt Sergeant wrote:
http://modperl.sergeant.org/ApacheConRep.txt
Enjoy.
Thanks for that Matt, I did enjoy it - IBM's party coninciding with Suns
I eventually could not make the conferance due to a nasty deadline
You missed a lot.
Did Doug
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Greg Cope wrote:
Matt Sergeant wrote:
http://modperl.sergeant.org/ApacheConRep.txt
Enjoy.
Thanks for that Matt, I did enjoy it - IBM's party coninciding with Suns
keynote made me chukle ;-)
I eventually could not make the conferance due to a nasty deadline
Matt Sergeant wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Greg Cope wrote:
Matt Sergeant wrote:
http://modperl.sergeant.org/ApacheConRep.txt
Enjoy.
Thanks for that Matt, I did enjoy it - IBM's party coninciding with Suns
keynote made me chukle ;-)
I eventually could not make the
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Tim Sweetman wrote:
In no particular order, and splitting hairs some of the time...
Sounded like mod_backhand was best used NOT in the same Apache as a phat
application server (eg. mod_perl), because you don't want memory-heavy
processes sitting waiting for responses.
: ApacheCon report
Yes, but the backend mod_perl servers are running backhand.
So you have:
B B B B
\ | | /
\ \/ /
\|/
F
Where all the servers are running mod_backhand, but only F is
publically
accessible. There may also be 1 F. Its in his slides, and is prettier
than
-Original Message-
From: David Waldo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 12:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ApacheCon report
Do you happen to have the URL for Theo's presentation?
I don't see it on the apachecon site.
http://www.backhand.org
-Original Message-
From: Matt Sergeant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 12:37 PM
To: Tim Sweetman
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ApacheCon report
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Tim Sweetman wrote:
In no particular order, and splitting hairs some
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Geoffrey Young wrote:
I was really impressed with backhand at Theo's presentation at ApacheCon US
in March. From what I rememeber though, it had serious limitations in the
SSL space. Did Theo touch on that? The converstation I had with him about
it back then was that
25 matches
Mail list logo
