Hello! On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:43:41AM -0400, DevNginx wrote:
> I would also like to add a vote for FCGI multiplexing. > > There is no obligation for backends, since non-implementing backends can > indicate FCGI_CANT_MPX_CONN in response to a FCGI_GET_VALUES request by > nginx. The other poster has already mentioned FCGI_ABORT_REQUEST and > dropping response packets from dangling requests. > > My scenario is that I have a variety of requests: some take a while, but > others are a quick URL rewrite culminating in a X-Accel-Redirect. This > rewrite involves complicated logic which is part of my overall backend > application., which I would rather not factor out and rewrite into a nginx > module The actual computation for the URL rewrite is miniscule compared to > the overhead of opening/closing a TCP connection, so FCGI request > multiplexing would be of great help here. > > If the overhead of a multiplexed FCGI request starts to approach doing the > work directly in an nginx module, it would give a valuable alternative to > writing modules. This would avoid the pitfalls of writing modules (code > refactoring, rewriting in C, jeopardizing nginx worker process, etc.). Your use case seems to be perfectly covered by a keepalive connections support, which is already here. See http://nginx.org/r/keepalive. -- Maxim Dounin http://nginx.org/en/donation.html _______________________________________________ nginx mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
