Virtual hosts, existing apache and some more

Harmen harmen at
Mon Mar 14 16:55:23 PST 2005

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:45:20PM -0800, Ask Bj?rn Hansen wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2005, at 16:12, Harmen wrote:
> >Aha. That explains. But a frontend apache is nice to have. It is fast
> >enough and does some other useful things. Any suggestions what to use 
> >to
> >connect to the Perlbal @ localhost? Plain old mod_rewrite/mod_proxy?
> Using perlbal instead of httpd/mod_proxy gives you better keepalive 
> handling (if you are interested in that).

The backends do not use keepalive now, indeed. Does it differ from apache for the
clients? Think the cost of a longer keepalive is almost none with Perlbal,
but with Apache you need a whole child for each connection, right?

Disadvantage is the backends have to do the http content compression
themselves. The frontend does that now.

>  - ask

Ask, have you got some Perlbal successstories to share?

Thanks again for the help,

                               The Moon is Waxing Crescent (24% of Full)

More information about the perlbal mailing list