I'm running Apache 1.3.12 for the backend and Apache 2.0.16 (beta release) with current mod_proxy (CVS from Thursday) in front.
We've gone through a few thousand hits now with this setup, so I think it is safe to say that the lobotimized (HTTP/1.0-only) mod_proxy is wonderfully stable. I can't vouch for caching, but IMHO adding an option to downgrade to HTTP/1.0 would be the only thing necessary to reintegrate mod_proxy back into the httpd source tree. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will want to run a setup similar to mine, with Apache 2.0.x beta in front and Apache 1.3.x with special modules in back, who will run Apache 2.0 as soon as mod_proxy is available in the package. -Nathan On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Chuck Murcko wrote: > Um, what version of httpd are you talking about, BTW? 8^) > > On Sunday, April 22, 2001, at 01:05 AM, Chuck Murcko wrote: > > > Both chunking and persistent connections need some work. I thought I > > was crazy, since no one seems to have seen the persistent connection > > problem save me until now. > > > > Thanks. The idea of a runtime downgrade option to 1.0 might be useful > > in the long run, not just the beta timeframe. > > > > Chuck > > > > On Saturday, April 21, 2001, at 07:48 PM, Nathan Lutchansky wrote: > > > >> Hi again, > >> > >> It seems that mod_proxy does not support chunked responses. Is this > >> correct, or do I have something configured wrong? > >> > >> Many of the generated responses from Apache 1.3, particularly those for > >> error and redirect messages, are sent in chunked format. Thus, any 404 > >> messages sent from my backend server do not get displayed by the client > >> browser, and instead the user gets a blank page. > >> > >> I changed proxy_http.c to send HTTP/1.0 requests instead, and now it > >> seems > >> to work fine. > >> > >> Perhaps we could have a run-time configuration directive to force > >> mod_proxy to use HTTP/1.0? At least until chunked replies are > >> implemented, anyway. I'm sure this problem will be noticed as soon as > >> mod_proxy makes it into the Apache 2.0 distribution if it is not at > >> least > >> documented. > >> > >> Thanks. -Nathan > >> > >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Nathan Lutchansky wrote: > >> > >>> Hello everyone, > >>> > >>> I'm in the process of upgrading my webserver to Apache 2.0, but > >>> since I > >>> need mod_php and mod_perl, I'm leaving Apache 1.3.12 running on a > >>> different port to service some parts of the site. Thus my need for > >>> mod_proxy. > >>> > >>> I installed mod_proxy from CVS on Thursday, so I believe it's still > >>> up to > >>> date. It went into Apache 2.0.16 as static, after several hours of > >>> fighting trying to get the .so to build correctly. Argh. This is a > >>> known > >>> problem, though. > >>> > >>> Anyway, now that it's all up and running, I'm pretty happy with it. > >>> I'm > >>> using it with both ProxyPass and the RewriteRule [P] flag and it all > >>> seems > >>> to work fine. > >>> > >>> The one problem I'm having is that keepalive doesn't seem to work > >>> correctly. The symptom is that loading documents that are already > >>> cached > >>> take 15-20 seconds *each* to load, when all that is being returned > >>> is a > >>> 304 status code. This is a pain when loading a page with a large > >>> number > >>> of graphics as it can take several minutes to complete. This problem > >>> occurs with both Mozilla 0.8.1 and MSIE 5.x. > >>> > >>> When the following conditions are true, there is a 15-20 second delay > >>> in > >>> getting back a response: > >>> > >>> 1) The browser supports keepalive. > >>> 2) The browser has the current page in the cache. > >>> 3) Current mod_proxy 2.0 is talking to an HTTP/1.1 backend server. > >>> 4) The backend returns a 304 status code for the request. > >>> > >>> The workaround is to put a "SetEnv nokeepalive" on the backend server > >>> to > >>> disable keepalive on proxied requests. I've also tried putting > >>> "SetEnv > >>> force-response-1.0" and "SetEnv downgrade-1.0" but they did not solve > >>> the > >>> problem. > >>> > >>> Interestingly, when the browser does not have the page in its cache, > >>> keepalive seems to work fine when passing the full page back to the > >>> client. > >>> > >>> I hope this is enough information to track down the problem. -Nathan > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> +-------------------+---------------------+------------------------+ > >> | Nathan Lutchansky | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Lithium Technologies | > >> +------------------------------------------------------------------+ > >> | I dread success. To have succeeded is to have finished one's | > >> | business on earth... I like a state of continual becoming, | > >> | with a goal in front and not behind. - George Bernard Shaw | > >> +------------------------------------------------------------------+ > >> > >> > > > Chuck Murcko > Topsail Group > http://www.topsail.org/ > > > -- +-------------------+---------------------+------------------------+ | Nathan Lutchansky | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Lithium Technologies | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | I dread success. To have succeeded is to have finished one's | | business on earth... I like a state of continual becoming, | | with a goal in front and not behind. - George Bernard Shaw | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
