Thanks for the breakdown. I want to make sure I understand what you are saying correctly. When you say "enabled for mass hosting" what does that mean specifically? Does that mean supports a large number of virtual hosts or something else?
Also, I suppose that with mod_proxy another plus may be that the xsp server process could be physically located on another machine(s).
-nate
On 4/15/06,
Robert Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nate,
> Does anyone know what are the advantages/disadvantages of using mod_mono
> with apache versus setting up apache with mod_proxy to proxy an XSP server
> running on a private port? I know that this is a common practice in the
> Java world with Tomcat/application servers and was just curious if there was
> a reason that that approach would not be recommended for mono and XSP.
mod_mono:
+ performs better (it uses Unix domain sockets to communicate
with the Mono server. The response headers doesn't need to be
parsed/rewritten.)
+ faster file transfers
+ common URL namespace with Apache (if AddHandler is used)
+ autohosting: http://www.mono-project.com/AutoHosting
+ enabled for mass hosting
mod_proxy + mod_proxy_http:
+ ability to run the app server under a different UID
(mod_mono is supposed to support this too)
- the app server process cannot be controlled by Apache
- difficult mass hosting
Robert
_______________________________________________
Mono-list maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
_______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
