OK, I can't figure this out.. help me out here. I want to deal with my
virtual hosts on the heavyweight server. The frontend server should just
be a simple thing that I never have to touch.
Matt, you might want to check out this patch to mod_proxy posted to
new-httpd by Sam Tregar:
Matt Sergeant wrote:
I'm behind a 64k leased line here (net access is *extremely* expensive
here in the UK) and I was thinking, a proxy front end is probably really
not necessary for me. Worst case scenario: I get 8 clients connecting to
my at about 1KB/s - my pipe is maxed out anyway, so
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
Matt Sergeant wrote:
I'm behind a 64k leased line here (net access is *extremely* expensive
here in the UK) and I was thinking, a proxy front end is probably really
not necessary for me. Worst case scenario: I get 8 clients connecting to
my
I'm behind a 64k leased line here (net access is *extremely* expensive
here in the UK) and I was thinking, a proxy front end is probably really
not necessary for me. Worst case scenario: I get 8 clients connecting to
my at about 1KB/s - my pipe is maxed out anyway, so pushing them
onto a proxy is
hi,
so your saying that say 'squid' would not be productive? seems
to me that if you are caching http and ftp stuff well that is going to
provide you with the pseudo of more bandwidth.. since not all requests
need to go beyond squid .. being delivered from the cache or chain of
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, dreamwvr wrote:
hi,
so your saying that say 'squid' would not be productive? seems
to me that if you are caching http and ftp stuff well that is going to
provide you with the pseudo of more bandwidth.. since not all requests
need to go beyond squid .. being
hi,
that is the whole point about squid since not all requests need to go all
the way out there and all the way back:-))
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Matt Sergeant wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, dreamwvr wrote:
hi,
so your saying that say 'squid' would not be productive? seems
to me
Matt Sergeant wrote:
If I can't serve pages any faster, or to more people because
of bandwidth limitations - what good can it do me?
dreamwvr may to trying to get the point across that squid could
be on the ISP side of your 64K line. I don't think this is going
to happen in practice, though.
"d" == dreamwvr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
d that is the whole point about squid since not all requests need to go all
d the way out there and all the way back:-))
The discussion here is using squid as a reverse proxy, to accelerate
your httpd to the outside world. Not using squid as a
You could however have someone with much more bandwidth than you use
mod_proxy to proxy and cache your site. Like someone such as myself
where bandwidth in the US is so cheap it's ridiculous. Upgrading to
T1 size pipe in a couple weeks at $200/mo with DSL... hehe, too
awesome. (384k now) So,
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could however have someone with much more bandwidth than you use
mod_proxy to proxy and cache your site. Like someone such as myself
where bandwidth in the US is so cheap it's ridiculous. Upgrading to
T1 size pipe in a couple weeks at
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Matt Sergeant wrote:
1 mod_perl process could handle all the load
you could possibly generate, and just let the mod_proxies build up and
you'll see a lot lower memory usage on your box... seriously, in low
bandwidth situations if your using the box for more than
"MS" == Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MS OK, I can't figure this out.. help me out here. I want to deal with my
MS virtual hosts on the heavyweight server. The frontend server should just
MS be a simple thing that I never have to touch.
Front end must be virtual-host aware as well.
13 matches
Mail list logo
