On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Eric Frazier wrote:
> > On that note, how about just using Apache2 for the proxy front end, and
> > mod_perl /apache 1.x for the back end? I have wanted to try to avoid the
> > thttpd stuff for images and from what I have heard about apache2 it can
> > handle static pages a lot faster than the 1.x did.
>
> You really should be able to get more than enough performance out of 1.x
> for static files, unless you are using very old hardware. We used a
> slim 1.x build with mod_proxy, mod_ssl, and mod_rewrite for all of our
> static files at eToys and it ran like a champ. It's true that both
> thttpd and apache 2 have better performance, but web server performance
> on static files is almost irrelevant on today's hardware because you
> fill your bandwidth up long before anything else becomes an issue.
Hmm, I think it all depends on the application. It's true that hardware
costs have declined since The Days, but you still don't have unlimited
RAM. At ValueClick we were delivering 100 million+ gif images a day, after
doing all the hard stuff with mod_perl servers, and it was just not
possible to keep up with apache 1.3x. We wound up having just one machine
running thttpd serving all those images for 50 or a hundred webservers.
So sometimes I believe it's called for.
- nick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nick Tonkin {|8^)>
