Gerald Richter wrote:
>
> > These are on the same server, and all images and CGI's run on the
> > small apache, and the page contents are dynamically generated by a
> > heavy back-end proxied transparently. The front end apache proxies to
> > a different back-end based on the hostname it is contacted under.
> >
> Do you know how does this work with slow clients compared to squid. I always
> thought (but never tried) one benfit of squid is, that it temporaly caches
> (should be better say buffers?) the output generated by mod_perl scripts, so
> the script can run as fast as possible and deliver it's output to squid,
> while squid delivers the output to a slower client, the the process running
> mod_perl can already serve the next request, therfore keeping the number of
> mod_perl processes small.
>
> Does this work in this way with squid? I don't think this will work with
> Apache and a simple ProxyPass...
>
Gerald,
I don't know what squid's buffer is like, but back in apache
1.3.4, the proxy buffer IOBUFSIZE was #defined to 8192 bytes,
which would be used in proxy_util.c:ap_proxy_send_fb() to loop
over content being proxy passed in 8K chunks, passing that
on to the client.
So if all the web files are <8K, perfect, but I'd suggest
increasing the value that ap_proxy_send_fb uses to buffer
to the largest size output commonly sent by the mod_perl server.
If this is done, then apache's mod_proxy can be used as
effectively as squid to buffer output from a mod_perl server.
Regards,
Joshua
_________________________________________________________________
Joshua Chamas Chamas Enterprises Inc.
NodeWorks >> free web link monitoring Huntington Beach, CA USA
http://www.nodeworks.com 1-714-625-4051
