httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <dgau...@arctic.org>
Subject Re: [PATCH] for 1.2.X: proxy screwup
Date Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:19:49 GMT
Ok yeah that's just as powerful.  However your rewrite program is a
serialization point... which could be expensive depending on the load.
Squid's model doesn't need serialization there.  Squid also spawns
multiple rewriters, which is useful if rewriting involves I/O or other
blocking events... something which would really aggrevate the
serialization in mod_rewrite. 

Dean

On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

> 
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.95dg3.970814164036.31732K-100000@twinlark.arctic.org> you
wrote:
> 
> > You can pass URLs to an external program... say a perl program.  It forks
> > a configurable number of those and they eat URLs off a pipe, and write the
> > rewritten URL back to the server.  It's more powerful than mod_rewrite ...
> > and also something we can't do efficiently because of our process model.
> 
> More powerful than mod_rewrite? Why? You can do the same with mod_rewrite's
> RewriteMap _programs_? Same approach as in Squid, I think. Or did I miss
> something? 
> 
> > > > When I last evaluated Squid for use as an accelerator I had a few issues
> > > > with it: 
> > > > 
> > > > - no vhost support
> > > > - logging is different than apache (ad sites want all the logs), would
> > > >   require extra effort to generate as comprehensive logs as my client
had
> > > > - URL remapping wasn't as powerful
> > > > - no persistent connections
> > > 
> > > 	Does squid have proxypass/mod_rewrite functionality now, then?
> 
>                                        Ralf S. Engelschall
>                                        rse@engelschall.com
>                                        www.engelschall.com
> 


Mime
View raw message