Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-05-03 Thread Dave Hodgkinson
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

Re[2]: [RFC] modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-05-03 Thread Ilya Obshadko
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

Re: modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-05-01 Thread Vivek Khera
"GS" == Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: GS 3) mod_proxy is poorly designed and poorly implemented. The main GSdeficiency is that each process is responsible for opening and GSmaintaining its connection to the backend. This defeats GSkeep-alives completely and forces a lot of

Re: modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-04-29 Thread Jeffrey W. Baker
On 29 Apr 2000, Greg Stark wrote: Despite these concerns I've been using mod_proxy myself and it does work. I'm planning to change to mod_backhand though which implements 3) but it's new code. Let me know how that works out for you. I tried to implement backhand, but it simply did not have

Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-04-28 Thread Dave Hodgkinson
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",

Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-04-28 Thread Vivek Khera
"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

Re: modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-04-28 Thread Greg Stark
A few lessons on this arena: 1) Move your pictures to another server *even if you're using a proxy* Search back in the archives for my previous post on this topic. 2) If you use mod_proxy you can give it the same web root and have it serve some static objects itself instead of having to

Re: modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-04-28 Thread shane
Yep all these things are true. Well, the part about being poorly designed is wrong, it just was designed well, then hacked to death :-), I guess I'm splitting hairs, but the essential design is easy to follow. I picked up the entire module in a just a few hours. (I just think it isn't fair to

Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-04-27 Thread shane
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

Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-04-27 Thread shane
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

Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-04-27 Thread Leslie Mikesell
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

Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-04-27 Thread Vivek Khera
"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

Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-04-27 Thread Perrin Harkins
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

[RFC] modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-04-26 Thread shane
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.

Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl ratios...

2000-04-26 Thread Leslie Mikesell
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