Nate,
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?
Yes, it is able to separate the apps of the virtual hosts
from each other by serving them from different processes.
Also, I suppose that with mod_proxy another plus may be that the xsp server
process could be physically located on another machine(s).
Mod_mono supports this as well.
Robert
-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
_______________________________________________
Mono-list maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
