> Message du 17/12/08 21:54
> De : "David Nicol"
> ldirectord will load-balance any number of back-ends; state has to be
> maintained on all of them the same though
>
Yup, ldirectord (a scheduler for LVS) is right for load-balancing.
But it is only a tcp-header-rewrite (or so called NAT or rever
ldirectord will load-balance any number of back-ends; state has to be
maintained on all of them the same though
Thanks, Frank!
Good to know!
Take care,
Kurt
Frank Wiles wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:10:21 -0500
Kurt Hansen wrote:
Hi,
amiribarksdale wrote:
Oh, one other wrinkle is ssl. I had to forgo proxying my ssl pages
using nginx, varnish or lighttpd. In all three cases I had to make
a
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:10:21 -0500
Kurt Hansen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> amiribarksdale wrote:
> > Oh, one other wrinkle is ssl. I had to forgo proxying my ssl pages
> > using nginx, varnish or lighttpd. In all three cases I had to make
> > apache listen on my real IP address to port 443 for https from t
Hi,
amiribarksdale wrote:
Oh, one other wrinkle is ssl. I had to forgo proxying my ssl pages using
nginx, varnish or lighttpd. In all three cases I had to make apache listen
on my real IP address to port 443 for https from the internet, and only
allow it to listen on localhost:8080 for whatever
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:46:53 -0800 (PST)
amiribarksdale wrote:
>
> Oh, one other wrinkle is ssl. I had to forgo proxying my ssl pages
> using nginx, varnish or lighttpd. In all three cases I had to make
> apache listen on my real IP address to port 443 for https from the
> internet, and only all
t;
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:02:00 +0100 (CET)
>> Jeff Pang wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have a modperl application on a host which is running with heavy
>>> load. I have the plan to put a reverse proxy before it.
>>> There are
nning with heavy
>> load. I have the plan to put a reverse proxy before it.
>> There are two well known reverse proxy software, one is Squid,
>> another is nginx. Which one is better for modperl application? or is
>> there any others which are better than these two?
>
>
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:08:01 +0100 (CET)
Jeff Pang wrote:
> Thanks for all the kind info and replying.
> When you use reverse proxy, do you generally have more than one
> modperl backend servers? In my case, I have only one modperl server.
> When I put a reverse-proxy in front of
Thanks for all the kind info and replying.
When you use reverse proxy, do you generally have more than one modperl backend
servers?
In my case, I have only one modperl server. When I put a reverse-proxy in front
of it, will it improve the performance?
Thanks.
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Jeff Pang wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a modperl application on a host which is running with heavy load.
> I have the plan to put a reverse proxy before it.
> There are two well known reverse proxy software, one is Squid, another is
> nginx.
>
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:02:00 +0100 (CET)
Jeff Pang wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a modperl application on a host which is running with heavy
> load. I have the plan to put a reverse proxy before it.
> There are two well known reverse proxy software, one is Squid,
> another is n
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jeff Pang wrote:
Hello,
I have a modperl application on a host which is running with heavy load.
I have the plan to put a reverse proxy before it.
There are two well known reverse proxy software, one is Squid, another
is nginx.
Which one is better for modperl
Perrin Harkins wrote:
I haven't seen a good comparison that hits
all the popular proxy servers (perlbal, pound, nginx, lighttpd,
apache, squid... I think I'm forgetting some) but I've wanted one
before.
If you could include varnish, I'd be really happy :)
--
Michael Peters
Plus Three, LP
I'm proposing to give a talk at OSCON this year about choosing your
reverse proxy, comparing proxy servers and other parts of the stack
like mod_perl and FastCGI. I haven't seen a good comparison that hits
all the popular proxy servers (perlbal, pound, nginx, lighttpd,
apache, squid.
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Jeff Pang wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a modperl application on a host which is running with heavy load.
> I have the plan to put a reverse proxy before it.
> There are two well known reverse proxy software, one is Squid, another is
> nginx.
>
Jeff Pang wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a modperl application on a host which is running with heavy load.
> I have the plan to put a reverse proxy before it.
> There are two well known reverse proxy software, one is Squid, another
> is nginx.
> Which one is better for modpe
Hello,
I have a modperl application on a host which is running with heavy load.
I have the plan to put a reverse proxy before it.
There are two well known reverse proxy software, one is Squid, another is nginx.
Which one is better for modperl application? or is there any others which are
better
Hi Michael,
Michael Peters wrote:
Raymond Wan wrote:
I had looked at the effect compression has on web pages a while ago.
Though not relevant to modperl, there is obviously a cost to
compression and since most HTML pages are small, sometimes it is hard
to justify.
Not to discredit the w
Raymond Wan wrote:
I had looked at the effect compression has on web pages a while ago.
Though not relevant to modperl, there is obviously a cost to compression
and since most HTML pages are small, sometimes it is hard to justify.
Not to discredit the work you did researching this, but a lo
ingle page. :-)
Ray
Anyway, hope that's helpful to anybody running large dynamic websites
behind a reverse proxy. Keep mod_cache, maybe think about ditching
mod_deflate. The combination does technically work, but for large
numbers of pages, it can make your cache size (and your iowait) explode.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Neil Gunton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only downside is that people on extremely slow dialup connections might
> notice longer download times for page text... but I have to wonder if that's
> really an issue today. Back in 1998 perhaps you might care about som
case, don't dialup ISPs often implement their own compression now?
Anyway, hope that's helpful to anybody running large dynamic websites
behind a reverse proxy. Keep mod_cache, maybe think about ditching
mod_deflate. The combination does technically work, but for large
numbers of page
Neil Gunton wrote:
[...]
At the risk of stating the obvious, but since you are talking about
mod_perl (and thus I suppose perl), the basic module File::Find is a
good starting point to collect all kinds of statistics about a file
hierarchy.
Such as how many levels maximum and average, how many
Neil Gunton wrote:
Neil Gunton wrote:
It seems like this might have something to do with mod_deflate, which I
am using in combination with mod_disk_cache. This page gives a clue that
there might be a problem with the way files are cached when these
modules are both enabled:
http://www.digita
/tech-blog/general/apache-mod_deflate-and-mod_cache-issues.html
Seems like a very recent post (Nov 18th).
Any ideas? Seems like a big problem, if you're trying to use a reverse
proxy on a large dynamic site, and also optimize bandwidth by using
mod_deflate too.
Neil
That does look like
Adam Prime wrote:
That does look like a big deal, if i were in your situation, I'd try
running with only mod_deflate, then only mod_cache, and see what
happens. There are benefits to running the reverse proxy alone (without
mod_cache), so that'd be the first scenario i'd try.
h).
Any ideas? Seems like a big problem, if you're trying to use a reverse
proxy on a large dynamic site, and also optimize bandwidth by using
mod_deflate too.
Neil
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Neil Gunton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perrin Harkins wrote:
>>
>> A ton of RAM in the server might help too.
>
> I've already got 4GB in there.
Some desktop machines ship with that much these days. You could bump
it up to 16 or 32 (assuming it's 64-bit) pretty
Perrin Harkins wrote:
A ton of RAM in the server might help too.
I've already got 4GB in there.
Well, the du just finished, it took 214 minutes to complete. I just took
a look at one of the directories in the cache. Now, I have it set for a
depth of 3, so I looked at d/d/d just randomly select
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He's already using RAID0, which should be the best performance of RAID since
> it doesn't have to use any parity blocks/disks right?
Yes, I missed that. He could still improve the throughput by adding more disks.
> And
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, Neil Gunton wrote:
I think the issue here is the large size of the directory tree itself -
simply traversing this seems to be a problem. I started off a du this
morning on that tree, at around 9am, and it's now after 12 midday and
the command is still not done yet. Meanwh
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 03:37:29PM -0500, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well except for getting 15K disks you probably won't be able to get much
> > more improvement from just the hardware.
>
> You don't think so? RAID and S
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well except for getting 15K disks you probably won't be able to get much
more improvement from just the hardware.
You don't think so? RAID and SSD can both improve your write
throughput pretty sig
André Warnier wrote:
Neil Gunton wrote:
[...]
Hi.
I am not really an expert on large websites, caches and so on, but in
our applications we are managing a large number of files.
One of the things we have learned over the years, is that even on modern
operating systems, having large numbers of e
Michael Peters wrote:
Michael Peters wrote:
But these benchmarks (http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388)
say the following:
For quick operations on large file tree, choose Ext3 or XFS.
Benchmarks from other authors have
supported the use of ReiserFS for operations on large nu
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well except for getting 15K disks you probably won't be able to get much
> more improvement from just the hardware.
You don't think so? RAID and SSD can both improve your write
throughput pretty significantly.
- Perrin
Michael Peters wrote:
According to these benchmarks
(http://fsbench.netnation.com/new_hardware/2.6.0-test9/scsi/bonnie.html)
ReiserFS handles deletes much better than ext2 (10,015/sec vs 729/sec)
But these benchmarks (http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388) say
the following:
F
Neil Gunton wrote:
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Neil Gunton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The section on "Maintaining the Disk Cache" says you should use
htcacheclean, which is what I've been doing, and it doesn't seem to
be up to
the job.
I can't speak to your file
Neil Gunton wrote:
[...]
Hi.
I am not really an expert on large websites, caches and so on, but in
our applications we are managing a large number of files.
One of the things we have learned over the years, is that even on modern
operating systems, having large numbers of entries in each directo
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Neil Gunton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The section on "Maintaining the Disk Cache" says you should use
htcacheclean, which is what I've been doing, and it doesn't seem to be up to
the job.
I can't speak to your filesystem question but you
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Neil Gunton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The section on "Maintaining the Disk Cache" says you should use
> htcacheclean, which is what I've been doing, and it doesn't seem to be up to
> the job.
I can't speak to your filesystem question but you might consider
getti
Neil Gunton wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/mod_disk_cache.html#cachegcinterval
Oops - sorry, I seem to have been looking at the 2.0 docs, rather than
the 2.2. In 2.2, it appears that CacheGCInterval has disappeared...
Now, looking at the 2.2. caching guide:
http://httpd.apache.
Perrin Harkins wrote:
One thing you didn't mention is why you're using mod_cache at all for
things not generated by mod_perl. Why don't you serve the static
files directly from your front-end server? That's the most common
setup I've seen, with proxying only for mod_perl requests.
Yes, I am o
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Neil Gunton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone replied to me off-list suggesting using Squid instead of httpd for
> the front-end caching reverse proxy. I guess that is a good question - I use
> Apache for proxying mainly because I know apache
Someone replied to me off-list suggesting using Squid instead of httpd
for the front-end caching reverse proxy. I guess that is a good question
- I use Apache for proxying mainly because I know apache quite well, and
like being able to use mod_rewrite and other neat features that httpd
gives. I&
Hi all,
I posted this to the Apache httpd users list, but no reply there, so I'm
posting here in the hopes that someone else who uses mod_perl with
mod_cache in a reverse proxy setup might have insight.
I am using Apache 2.2.9 (built from source) on Debian Lenny to run a
fairly
e the best interface to define the
subroutine reference? Any existing modules that accept this sort of
configuration?
Thanks,
Jim
Jim Brandt wrote:
I need to implement the reverse proxy link-fixing behavior provided in
Apache 2 by mod_proxy_html:
http://apache.webthing.com/mod_proxy_html/
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Jim Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are there any other solutions for Apache 1 before I start hacking on this
> module?
The Apache::Filter stuff does work, but I don't see any advantage to
using that in this case. You'd still have to do the proxy fetch
yourse
I need to implement the reverse proxy link-fixing behavior provided in
Apache 2 by mod_proxy_html:
http://apache.webthing.com/mod_proxy_html/
but I need it in Apache 1.
Some digging turned up Apache::ReverseProxy, which appears to have a
nice spot in the code to access the response body
27;re serving static content, go with nginx. if you're not, go
with pound. differnet tool for different jobs.
Seriously though, it looks as though there are 5-10 good front end
server options which support the following to various degrees:
- reverse proxy
- caching
- load balancing
- s
From: "John ORourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Seriously though, it looks as though there are 5-10 good front end server
options which support the following to various degrees:
- reverse proxy
- caching
- load balancing
- static file serving
There is no clear choice since our s
Octavian Rasnita wrote:
At the address
http://www.guindilla.eu/blog/2006/12/31/deployement-nginx-reverse-proxy-my-network/
I found the text below. Does anyone know if it is still true?
Pound (http://www.apsis.ch/pound/index_html) is light-weight, easy to
I can disagree -- nginx does
At the address
http://www.guindilla.eu/blog/2006/12/31/deployement-nginx-reverse-proxy-my-network/
I found the text below. Does anyone know if it is still true?
Squid and Apache were discarded because too heavy. I did not want another
performance hole in my already strained server.
Pound
Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
Pound (http://www.apsis.ch/pound/index_html) is light-weight, easy to
I can disagree -- nginx does everything that pound does, plus will
handle your vanilla static files and even use fcgi to handle php and
other stuff
Reading these responses I think a generic config is
On Nov 8, 2007, at 5:50 AM, Clinton Gormley wrote:
Pound (http://www.apsis.ch/pound/index_html) is light-weight, easy to
configure, fast, stable, and makes the whole SSL and load balancing
dead
easy.
I can disagree -- nginx does everything that pound does, plus will
handle your vanilla s
> Although, I would go for something like pound doing the proxying for
> me, instead of mod_proxy
I can't agree more!
Pound (http://www.apsis.ch/pound/index_html) is light-weight, easy to
configure, fast, stable, and makes the whole SSL and load balancing dead
easy.
Pound++
Clint
Randal is the master wizard, so you might wanna read that article in detail.
Although, I would go for something like pound doing the proxying for
me, instead of mod_proxy
I like to run apache on an unprivileged port, so that's an added
bonus, plus pound will take care of ssl too.
On 11/8/07, Ran
> "John" == John ORourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Hi folks,
John> I'm about to write a generic set of init scripts and config files to make
John> setting up dual apache servers (one light proxy/cache/ssl, one heavy
mod_perl)
John> easy.
John> Am I reinventing the wheel?
John> If no
Hi folks,
I'm about to write a generic set of init scripts and config files to
make setting up dual apache servers (one light proxy/cache/ssl, one
heavy mod_perl) easy.
Am I reinventing the wheel?
If not I'll post a link here when I'm done.
cheers
John
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: modperl@perl.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2007 8:07:53 AM
Subject: reverse proxy/logging problem
Hi,
I've got a two-apache reverse proxy setup, split over two hosts.
The problem I've got is that I'd like to put the user_id in the access logs
so that our
On Aug 2, 2007, at 11:07 AM, Carl Johnstone wrote:
I've got a two-apache reverse proxy setup, split over two hosts.
The problem I've got is that I'd like to put the user_id in the
access logs so that our log analysis software can make use of it.
Setting apache->user
On Thursday 02 August 2007 17:07, Carl Johnstone wrote:
> The problem I've got is that I'd like to put the user_id in the access logs
> so that our log analysis software can make use of it.
>
> Setting apache->user correctly logs the user at the back-end however the IP
> addresses are wrong, being
Hi,
I've got a two-apache reverse proxy setup, split over two hosts.
The problem I've got is that I'd like to put the user_id in the access logs
so that our log analysis software can make use of it.
Setting apache->user correctly logs the user at the back-end however the
essage-
From: Sylvain Perrot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: lundi, 8. janvier 2007 23:44
To: Modperl Mailing List
Subject: RE: PerlAuthenHandler, PerlAuthzHandler, Reverse Proxy and Web
Services Problem
Hi,
Thanks for the explanation about the 3 Handlers :) It means that the
first handler who r
Frank Wiles wrote:
>
> The best way to think about it is like this:
>
> PerlAccessHandler > is this IP allowed?
> PerlAuthenHandler > is this username allowed?
> PerlAuthzHandler> is this group allowed?
>
Small correction:
PerlAccessHandler
st
Subject: Re: PerlAuthenHandler, PerlAuthzHandler, Reverse Proxy and Web
Services Problem
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:37:54 +0100
"Sylvain Perrot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, As I am new to modperl development, I would like to validate my
> configuration :) As I u
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:37:54 +0100
"Sylvain Perrot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, As I am new to modperl development, I would like to validate my
> configuration :)
> As I understood, PerlAuthenHandler and PerlAuthzHandler are working in
> parallel, and the first who give back a OK wins ...
Hi,
I am trying to develop a secured Reverse Proxy which use the
PerlAuthenHandler/PerlAuthzHandler to accept or reject the connection.
The synoptic is the following:
CLIENT -> RP (linux, apache2, modperl) -> Windows Server (.Net
Application, .Net Web Service)
My RP configuration
Jonathan Vanasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [08-12-2006 21:50]:
> On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Sumit Shah wrote:
>> I want the request to come to My::RequestHandler FIRST and then go
>> to the ProxyPass Directive. It does not do this. It BYPASSES my
I've been working on something like this recently...
On Dec 8, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Frank Wiles wrote:
Slightly off topic, but I was wondering could you just stack a I/O
filter handler on the proxy? Anyone know if this is possible?
thats a good idea.
personally, i wish one could change when mod_proxy is called.
someone pointed to apach
> > handler and goes to the Reverse Proxy.
> > I would appreciate any suggestions.
Slightly off topic, but I was wondering could you just stack a I/O
filter handler on the proxy? Anyone know if this is possible?
I was thinking this type of technique might be useful when y
On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Sumit Shah wrote:
I want the request to come to My::RequestHandler FIRST and then go
to the ProxyPass Directive. It does not do this. It BYPASSES my
handler and goes to the Reverse Proxy.
I would appreciate any suggestions.
The Apache configuration doesn&#
Hello All,
I am trying to setup my Apache in such a way that for any .jsp requests
it invokes a Perl Handler. After invoking the Perl handler, it should
use the Reverse proxy setup to forward the same request to another server.
Here is my configuration(httpd.conf):
LoadModule proxy_module
Hi,
I have two fixup handlers, which I want to use in two separate
directories (dir 2 being under dir 1) :
...
PerlFixupHandler Apache2::mod_AAA
...
...
...
https://server/BBB/>
...
PerlFixupHandler Apache2::mod_BBB
...
Is this allowed ? Will it
On Sep 6, 2005, at 11:33 AM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
Two separate instances with mod_perl 1 or mod_perl 2 in prefork
MPM. It
may be possible to set up pooling of interpreters to get a similar
benefit without multiple servers when using mod_perl 2 with
threads, but
I haven't tried this.
To
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 16:37 +0200, Denis Banovic wrote:
> Do you have to run 2 instances of apache when you want to profit from
> the reverse proxy configuration?
> Or is it enough to have 2 different Virtual Server running?
Two separate instances with mod_perl 1 or mod_perl 2 in prefork
Hi everybody!
I have a simple reverse proxy question that might be slightly off topic
and I apologise for that!
Do you have to run 2 instances of apache when you want to profit from
the reverse proxy configuration?
Or is it enough to have 2 different Virtual Server running?
Thanks
Denis
Here
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
can anyone supply a simple example i then can check on our reverse
proxy ?
Try: t/response/TestApache/content_length_header.pm
Though I haven't tried to call it from the filter, so may be Jeff's
suggestion will work.
Jeff's suggestion does ind
or after).
it seems i must admit that i don't quite get what is going on and when.
can anyone supply a simple example i then can check on our reverse proxy ?
Try: t/response/TestApache/content_length_header.pm
Though I haven't tried to call it from the filter, so may be Jeff's
sug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi i don't get it. the below filter does output the content alright it
seems, but the setting of the header *value* is incorrect. (?)
so the $f->print statement prints correct output
but the calcualtion length(output) is incorrect (since it evaluates
length of this exact
7;t quite get what is going on and when.
can anyone supply a simple example i then can check on our reverse
proxy ?
Try: t/response/TestApache/content_length_header.pm
Though I haven't tried to call it from the filter, so may be Jeff's
suggestion will work.
Jeff's suggestion
hi i don't get it. the below filter does output the content alright it
seems, but the setting of the header *value* is incorrect. (?)
so the $f->print statement prints correct output
but the calcualtion length(output) is incorrect (since it evaluates
length of this exact string "\n"
)
why is tha
and when.
can anyone supply a simple example i then can check on our reverse proxy ?
Try: t/response/TestApache/content_length_header.pm
Though I haven't tried to call it from the filter, so may be Jeff's
suggestion will work.
Jeff's suggestion does indeed work. oddly enough ;
./a
ether i set it before the $f->print statement or after).
it seems i must admit that i don't quite get what is going on and when.
can anyone supply a simple example i then can check on our reverse proxy ?
Try: t/response/TestApache/content_length_header.pm
Though I haven't tried to
et what is going on and when.
>
> can anyone supply a simple example i then can check on our reverse proxy ?
ems i'm able to set the
Content-Length when i use the mod_perl_filter and do *not* reverse
proxy. see both headers below. the strange things is that i'm not
allowed at all to set the standard Content-Length, but indeed allowed
to set a custom one called Content-Length2. and even stra
t the Content-Length
when i use the mod_perl_filter and do *not* reverse proxy. see both
headers below. the strange things is that i'm not allowed at all to set
the standard Content-Length, but indeed allowed to set a custom one
called Content-Length2. and even stranger is that this custom h
perl_filter and do *not* reverse proxy. see both
headers below. the strange things is that i'm not allowed at all to set
the standard Content-Length, but indeed allowed to set a custom one
called Content-Length2. and even stranger is that this custom header
presents a correct value when *
scan all
> | response content
>
> A reverse-proxy in mod_perl is something I do for a living. When
> scaling up it quickly needs loads of RAM (2 Gb are cheap these days)
> but it is incredibly efficient and flexible for complex scenarios
> (e.g. taking over authentication dialogs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
allan juul wrote:
|
| so, is a mod_perl-enabled Apache acting as a proxy just a sick
| idea. it will proxy content and the filter will have to scan all
| response content
A reverse-proxy in mod_perl is something I do for a living. When
scaling up it
allan juul wrote:
[...]
i have fiddled with mod_proxy_html to rewrite stuff and that works
ok, but have some features that doesn't mix well with our solution
(content -type is encoded utf-8, where we proxy to iso-8859-1 for
instance. or some html tags are stripped etc.) also caching becomes
slo
Stas Bekman wrote:
allan juul wrote:
hi
i need advice before i waste too much time on the bleeding obvious.
we have a setup where we will reverse proxy content both to our own
backend-servers (which run on IIS) and other external servers which
content we dont control. one of the reasons we proxy
Mod_rewrite?
--- allan juul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi
>
> i need advice before i waste too much time on the
> bleeding obvious.
>
> we have a setup where we will reverse proxy content
> both to our own
> backend-servers (which run on IIS) and other
> ext
allan juul wrote:
hi
i need advice before i waste too much time on the bleeding obvious.
we have a setup where we will reverse proxy content both to our own
backend-servers (which run on IIS) and other external servers which
content we dont control. one of the reasons we proxy is because of
hi
i need advice before i waste too much time on the bleeding obvious.
we have a setup where we will reverse proxy content both to our own
backend-servers (which run on IIS) and other external servers which
content we dont control. one of the reasons we proxy is because of
speed/performance
we
le
> so I could be completely wrong.
No, mod_accel does not support the keep-alive connections to a backend so
it can not do such multiplexing.
However, I'm developing the new light-weight http and reverse proxy server
that will support the keep-alive connections to the backends and will
Hi there,
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Richard F. Rebel wrote:
> I would be interested if anyone knows of a mod_proxy replacement
> that does this sort of multiplexing
I had an idea that mod_accel would do that, but it's been a while
so I could be completely wrong.
73,
Ged.
--
Report problems: http:/
; > keepalives should be off so that the ap1 instances can be freed to
> > service another request while the reverse proxy is busy feeding slower
> > clients.
>
> That seems to be the case for mod_proxy.
>
> But if you use another proxy which knows how to multi
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 15:26, Stas Bekman wrote:
I remember Theo has mentioned that I think with some of the related to Spread
(spread.org) products. But I don't remember which.
You're thinking of mod_backhand, which doesn't support apache2.
Thank you, precious! I need a me
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
