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 $200/mo with DSL... hehe, too
> awesome. (384k now) So, lemme get this straight..., not only does UK
> have crazy webhosting laws, but you have to pay a ton for the
> bandwidth? Is the UK purposely trying to kill off any resemblance of
> the new economy in their country? Good lord!
Yes. BT have decided they want all the money for themselves ;-)
(it's about $500US/month for a 64k leased line - we're getting DSL in the
cities this summer...)
> Okay... I'm really really off topic here. But... to answer your
> question, no mod_proxy would be a huge benefit strangely enough.
> Because your bandwidth is really small... your going to have clients
> grabbing data at 1KB/sec off a HUGE mod_perl process... 64 of of them
> to be not so exact :-)
8. This is 64Kb, not 64KB. I only wish it were 64KB - had to download NT4
Option pack yesterday...
> 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 hosting
> (which I'd be willing to put good money on you are) then mod_proxy
> stands to give you tremendous benefits in the amount of free resources
> for other programs.
I'm going to try it. I'll let people know...
--
<Matt/>
Fastnet Software Ltd. High Performance Web Specialists
Providing mod_perl, XML, Sybase and Oracle solutions
Email for training and consultancy availability.
http://sergeant.org http://xml.sergeant.org
