There is a consideration, regarding using a proxy or a different server,
that has not been brought up: If there is mod_perl based access control
for the static files, then it's basically impossible not to go through a
mod_perl server to serve them.
If you're access control is in mod_perl, you
]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. April 2007 18:46
An: Perrin Harkins
Cc: Clinton Gormley; modperl@perl.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Growing Up
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:48:57 -0400
Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/17/07, Clinton Gormley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is it reasonable to serve your static
On 4/18/07, Denis Banovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to configure Perlbal so there is no single point of failure?
That sort of high-availability setup is beyond the scope of an
application-level load balancer like Perlbal. You need to use
something that allows for IP takeover.
On Apr 18, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
On 4/18/07, Denis Banovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to configure Perlbal so there is no single point of
failure?
That sort of high-availability setup is beyond the scope of an
application-level load balancer like Perlbal.
switch to a lightweight proxy + httpd on port 80. i like nginx
because its had much fewer critical bugs than lighttpd. others like
lighty. either will be fine - they'll free up apache to deal with
content generation and you'll see a ginormous performance boost off
that . you
On Apr 17, 2007, at 3:55 AM, Clinton Gormley wrote:
Must disagree with you about pound http://www.apsis.ch/pound/
index_html
being a PITA to configure and maintain.
Pound is really easy to configure, fast as all hell, and just never
goes
down. I've been using it for about 3 years now and
On 4/17/07, Clinton Gormley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is it reasonable to serve your static files from a mod_perl server, as
long as you have a proxy/pound/squid in front?
Yes, but spending no time in mod_perl for a static file is better than
spending a little time, and the files will be served
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:48:57 -0400
Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/17/07, Clinton Gormley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is it reasonable to serve your static files from a mod_perl server,
as long as you have a proxy/pound/squid in front?
Yes, but spending no time in mod_perl for a
and start
the growing up process.
I am looking for next steps to growing up from this machine. Can
somebody recommend a good article, presentation or document that
advocates various strategies to growing up the current architecture
(i.e. basic load balancing, network topology, switches, etc
On 4/17/07, Rafael Caceres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a consideration, regarding using a proxy or a different server,
that has not been brought up: If there is mod_perl based access control
for the static files, then it's basically impossible not to go through a
mod_perl server to serve
Hi,
I have a service that is currently running a basic LAMP stack with mod_perl
and life has been good!
The site running has been getting very busy and I've ordered a second
machine with intention to move the database off that machine and start the
growing up process.
I am looking for next
that machine and
start the growing up process.
I am looking for next steps to growing up from this machine. Can
somebody recommend a good article, presentation or document that
advocates various strategies to growing up the current architecture
(i.e. basic load balancing, network topology
and start the growing up process.
I am looking for next steps to growing up from this machine. Can
somebody recommend a good article, presentation or document that
advocates various strategies to growing up the current architecture
(i.e. basic load balancing, network topology, switches, etc
On 4/16/07, Will Fould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am looking for next steps to growing up from this machine. Can somebody
recommend a good article, presentation or document that advocates various
strategies to growing up the current architecture (i.e. basic load
balancing, network topology
14 matches
Mail list logo