------=_Part_4446_20020429.1192749205952
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Although mod_proxy is a nice module with many features, I would recommend
something like pound doing the proxying & load balancing. It's more light
and faster, plus you have the added advantage of keeping your webservers in
a local network. If you want something with more features lookup squid, but
I've had best results with pound using apache2 worker for static content
and apache2 prefork for modperl2 apps on different servers.


On 10/19/07, Jozef Kosoru wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 15:03:46 -0400, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > On 10/16/07, Mark Maunder wrote:
> > > This server has no proxy in front of it and only serves mod_perl
> > > requests. Static content is loaded from another server with a
> > > different hostname.

> >
> > Even so, if you run prefork, you need a proxy server. The reason is
> > explained in detail here:
> >

> http://www.modperlbook.org/html/12-5...ator-Mode.html
> >
> > In short, running a proxy will usually lower the number of mod_perl
> > processes needed significantly.

>
> If my understanding is correct then if you use Apache 2.2 as a proxy
> server with an even MPM you can even use KeepAlive on the front-end. The
> question is whether allowing KeepAlive on the backend server will allow
> the proxy server to reuse this connection to serve several clients or
> will just basically lock this proxy connection for the whole duration of
> a single client connection.
>
> There are some references about "connection pooling" to the backend
> server in mod_proxy documenation (ProxyPass Directive section):
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_proxy.html
>
> But I'm not sure this is relevant to http reverse proxies.
>
> --
> jozef kosoru
> http://zyzstar.kosoru.com
>


------=_Part_4446_20020429.1192749205952
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Although mod_proxy is a nice module with many features, I would recommend something like pound doing the proxying  & load balancing. It's more light and faster, plus you have the added advantage of  keeping your webservers in a local network. If you want something  with more features lookup squid, but I've had best results with pound using apache2 worker for  static content and apache2 prefork  for modperl2 apps on different servers. 



On 10/19/07, Jozef Kosoru <zyzstar@uid0.sk> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 15:03:46 -0400, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On 10/16/07, Mark Maunder <mmaunder@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This server has no proxy in front of it and only serves mod_perl

> > requests. Static content is loaded from another server with a
> > different hostname.
>
> Even so, if you run prefork, you need a proxy server.  The reason is
> explained in detail here:

> http://www.modperlbook.org/html/12-5-Adding-a-Proxy-Server-in-httpd-Accelerator-Mode.html
>
> In short, running a proxy will usually lower the number of mod_perl

> processes needed significantly.

If my understanding is correct then if you use Apache 2.2 as a proxy
server with an even MPM you can even use KeepAlive on the front-end. The
question is whether allowing KeepAlive on the backend server will allow

the proxy server to reuse this connection to serve several clients or
will just basically lock this proxy connection for the whole duration of
a single client connection.

There are some references about "connection pooling" to the backend

server in mod_proxy documenation (ProxyPass Directive section):

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_proxy.html

But I'm not sure this is relevant to http reverse proxies.


--
jozef kosoru
http://zyzstar.kosoru.com



------=_Part_4446_20020429.1192749205952--