Igor Sysoev wrote: > The main problem with mod_proxy is that it reads backend response > to 8K buffer and than sends it to client. When it have sent it > to client it reads again from backend. After it have sent whole > content to client it flushes buffer and only after this it closes > backend socket. Even backend send all to its kernel buffer and > response is recevied in frontend kernel buffer nevertheless backend > need to wait frontend in lingering_close. So we lose at least 2 seconds > with small client and big response.
Will making the 8k buffer bigger solve this problem? I will check that once the end of a request has been detected from the backend, this backend connection is closed before attempting to send the last chunk to the frontend. This should have the effect that with a large enough buffer, the backend will not have to wait around while a slow frontend munches the bytes. > > Once mod_cache is finished in v2.0, (in theory) the capability will be > > there to disengage expensive backends and slow frontends from each other > > - so all your problems will be solved. :) > > Will see 2.0 but I suppose that multi-threaded mod_perl backend with 10 > threads will occupy almost the same memory as 10 mod_perl single thread > processes. But a single thread of a mod_perl backend will use less resources if it need only stick around for 100ms, than it will if it has to stick around for a minute. Regards, Graham -- ----------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "There's a moon over Bourbon Street tonight..."
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature