Right. Think of it like this; your backend generates content, and your frontend serves that content as if it were static. Since you wouldn't gzip your static HTML before serving it, it follows that your backend server wouldn't compress it either.
Caching is a bit different. I think it's best to do it on the frontend, but if your frontend isn't smart enough to do it right (sessions), then you'll have to let the backend do it. Apache has some pretty intelligent modules these days, though, so investigate those before you do all the caching on the backend. (Then there's memcached, which is even farther back... but it serves a different purpose.) Regards, Jonathan Rockway Perrin Harkins wrote: > On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 15:00 -0500, Peter Karman wrote: >> We have a typical proxy frontend/mod_perl backend setup. Which server should >> handle the compression? Seems like maybe the backend could, since we are >> caching >> pages, but don't know if there are accepted best practices on this. > > If your frontend serves static files, and you want them compressed, you > should put it there. It's also better to have it there because it frees > up the backend server processes faster. > > - Perrin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
