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!
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 :-). 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.
Thanks,
Shane.
On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 04:35:26PM +0100, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> I'm behind a 64k leased line here (net access is *extremely* expensive
> here in the UK) and I was thinking, a proxy front end is probably really
> not necessary for me. Worst case scenario: I get 8 clients connecting to
> my at about 1KB/s - my pipe is maxed out anyway, so pushing them
> onto a proxy is just making more work! Just a thought for anyone
> thinking about a proxy front end - evaluate your pipe too.
>
> --
> <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
>
