There are some stability issues in mod_proxy for apache 2.0.28.
It can segfault or display run-away cpu issues in the following cases:
1) backend server closes connection without sending any data
2) backend sends bogus status line
3) backend sends HTTP/0.9 response
You might want to look and se
> "NT" == Nick Tonkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JA> 1) Static html server.
>>
>> I always make my front end reverse proxy handle static content
>> directly.
NT> Always is a strong word! At ValueClick we used thttpd servers to deliver
NT> gif images ... one thttpd could efficiently handle
On 4 Jan 2002, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > "JA" == John Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> JA> Because the front end reverse proxy needs to connect to one of 3
> JA> different servers.
>
>
> JA> 1) Static html server.
>
> I always make my front end reverse proxy handle static content
>
> "JA" == John Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JA> Because the front end reverse proxy needs to connect to one of 3
JA> different servers.
JA> 1) Static html server.
I always make my front end reverse proxy handle static content
directly.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Correct.
The overall goal here is to allow Apache 2.0 to handle the URL rewriting
and redirection for all different types of requests. Currently we use
Apache 1.3.14 for some items and the F5 load balancing box for others.
The F5 has a hard limit of 100 rules in its latest version and we would
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, John Armstrong wrote:
> When the reverse proxy connects to the windows boxes it needs to
> maintain a persistent connection since the client is an appliance, not a
> browser.
So if you will have persistent connection between client and frontend
and have non-persistent conne
When the reverse proxy connects to the windows boxes it needs to
maintain a persistent connection since the client is an appliance, not a
browser.
This works fine with 2.0 when 2.0 is not segfaulting :)
Think I'll just get out of apache land and let the F5 handle it for now,
we won't hit the
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, John Armstrong wrote:
> Correct, with 1.0 we lose persistency and things slow down significantly.
>
> I guess I should have just said 'Persistency' in the first place, sorry
> about that :)
OK. Where do you need persistent connection - between frontend and
xml backend or be
Correct, with 1.0 we lose persistency and things slow down significantly.
I guess I should have just said 'Persistency' in the first place, sorry
about that :)
John-
On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 01:44 PM, Igor Sysoev wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, John Armstrong wrote:
>
>> Because the fron
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, John Armstrong wrote:
> Because the front end reverse proxy needs to connect to one of 3
> different servers.
>
> 1) Static html server.
> 2) Mod Perl dynamic content server
> 3) Windows based xml servers that need to use 1.1 to communicate.
So if one will make request to x
Because the front end reverse proxy needs to connect to one of 3
different servers.
1) Static html server.
2) Mod Perl dynamic content server
3) Windows based xml servers that need to use 1.1 to communicate.
So for 3 we need chunked or the Content-Length, either way, we need 1.1.
compatibility
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, John Armstrong wrote:
> This 'seems' to be a modperl issue.
>
> My configuration. I needed a 1.1 compliant reverse proxy in order to
> support Chunked encoding for an xml gateway.
Why do you need chunked encoding from backend ?
> Since only Apache 2.0 has a 1.1 compliant r
> The 2.0.28 proxy uses mod_rewrite. When it rewrites url's internally to
> go to a static apache server all works great!
Compare the headers sent by your static pages vs. the ones sent by your
mod_perl pages. There might be something not quite 1.1 compliant about it
that ticks of apache 2 (alth
I was looking at oops but it doesn't seem to suit my needs which are :
Reverse 1.1 compliant proxy with mod_rewrite style capabilities.
Squid is my next chance but I was hoping to get apache working since I
don't want to run _3_ servers ( squid, static apache and modperl
apache ).
John-
On T
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:26:18 -0800, John Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
John> This 'seems' to be a modperl issue.
John> My configuration. I needed a 1.1 compliant reverse proxy in order to
John> support Chunked encoding for an xml gateway.
John> Since only Apache 2.0 has a 1.1 complian
15 matches
Mail list logo
