On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > [...]
> > >
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">http://forum.swarthmore.edu/epigone/modperl/grerdbrerdwul/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Mr. Llima must do something I don't, because with real world
> > requests I see a 15-20 to 1 ratio of mod_proxy/mod_perl processes at
> > "my" site. And that is serving <500byte stuff.
>
> I'm not following. Everyone agrees that we don't want to have
> big mod_perl processes waiting on slow clients. The question is
> whether tuning your socket buffer can provide the same benefits
> as a proxy server and the conclusion so far is that it can't
> because of the lingering close problem. Are you saying
> something different?
No.
Maybe I misunderstood the url quoted above.
Reminds me; would it make sense to put code like what's in
mod_proxy_add_forward.c in the mod_perl distribution?
- ask
--
ask bjoern hansen - <http://www.netcetera.dk/~ask/>
more than 70M impressions per day, <http://valueclick.com>
