Re: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-04 Thread Vivek Khera
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. --

Re: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-04 Thread Nick Tonkin
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 directly. Always is

Re: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-04 Thread Vivek Khera
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 the same number

RE: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-04 Thread Adam Sussman
03, 2002 11:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue 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. Since only Apache 2.0 has a 1.1 compliant reverse proxy

Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-03 Thread John Armstrong
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. Since only Apache 2.0 has a 1.1 compliant reverse proxy I replaced my Apache 1.3.14 standard apache wth an Apache 2.0.28 with the proxy

Re: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-03 Thread Ilya Martynov
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 compliant reverse

Re: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-03 Thread John Armstrong
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

Re: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-03 Thread Perrin Harkins
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

Re: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-03 Thread Igor Sysoev
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

Re: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-03 Thread John Armstrong
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.

Re: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-03 Thread Igor Sysoev
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 xml

Re: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-03 Thread John Armstrong
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 front

Re: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-03 Thread Igor Sysoev
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

Re: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-03 Thread Igor Sysoev
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

Re: Strange Apache 2.0 rewrite/proxy issue

2002-01-03 Thread John Armstrong
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