Works for me...I guess. The proxypass isn't redirecting a URL, the traffic DOES pass through Apache where the URL is rewritten and passed to the other end where the server then passes the request back through to apache and out to the client. This is a miniscule amount of processing, but it is a monumental addition of complexity. What if someone does something that wedges Apache? Then you have one server that's running fine, but the lighttpd is inaccessible through the normal means. It's the introduction of an unknown into the process which can be gotten around by other means.
I would still prefer running Apache on one IP and lighttpd on another. I understand user config issues, but there must be a better way! On 12/15/05, Robby Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 10:01 -0800, Aaron Huslage wrote: > > FastCGI works the same under either web server, so I see no reason to > > pass FCGI traffic through Apache, then through Lighttpd, then to FCGI > > and back again. It's added complexity than is unnecessary, IMHO. > > > > Webrick is another story...Instiki is broken I think, or rather the > > use of it is wrong. Instiki wasn't really meant for anything more than > > a local service, so Webrick is more than sufficient. If you want a > > solution to that, try i2 or some other wiki engine. > > > > In a shared environment, why not just give a user an Apache config of > > their own that is included in the main site's config? That's what I've > > always done. > > > > Because our users want *us* to make it work. We take that extra step and > make sure we get it right so you don't have to. :-) > > > I see ProxyPass as useful if you are trying to centralize access to > > many services on several (or one) boxes, and I suppose a case could be > > made for using it at PA. It just seems to me that it's quite a lot of > > hoops to jump through from a debugging perspective. Why not just bind > > apache to one IP and Light to another in this case, for instance? > > > > Not really. We have a specific system that we use and not everyone wants > to bother with using Lighttpd. Some use Apache... but some want a speed > increase and don't mind hacking on a lighttpd.conf file. With us... when > you make the move to lighttpd, you take on more responsibility. Apache > isn't sexy enough (anymore) for people to want to take on that > responsibility. > > -Robby > > > -- > /****************************************************** > * Robby Russell, Founder.Developer.Geek > * PLANET ARGON, Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting > * Portland, Oregon | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068 > * www.planetargon.com | www.robbyonrails.com > * Programming Rails | www.programmingrails.com > *******************************************************/ > > _______________________________________________ > PDXRuby mailing list > [email protected] > IRC: #pdx.rb on irc.freenode.net > http://lists.pdxruby.org/mailman/listinfo/pdxruby > -- Aaron Huslage www.inveneo.org Cell: 503.860.1634 Office: 415.901.1969 x1245 _______________________________________________ PDXRuby mailing list [email protected] IRC: #pdx.rb on irc.freenode.net http://lists.pdxruby.org/mailman/listinfo/pdxruby
