Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 21:29:17 +0000 (GMT)
From: James Sutherland <jas88@cam.ac.uk>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: mod_proxy: proposal for v2.0
In-Reply-To: <389EEE98.40A53587@sharp.fm>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10002072124120.17825-100000@dax.joh.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Status: O

On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Graham Leggett wrote:

> James Sutherland wrote:
> 
> > I don't know if this is a viable solution for you, but there are level 7
> > switches which can do two of the three in hardware (load balancing and URL
> > redirection), leaving a single Apache layer to do compression.
> 
> I know, but hardware is proprietry, expensive and too limiting. For
> example, we also need split logfiles handling, one per virtual host, on
> the frontend, there is no guarantee this is possible.

I must admit, it's not a solution I would consider ideal...

What about using Squid as a frontend? It could (with a rewriter) handle
both the load-balancing and URL-based proxying easily enough, while Apache
would handle all the backend work. Squid can also produce full logs.

That's probably the way I would do it (depending, of course, on the exact
circumstances: how many servers? What bandwidth? etc.)

> So far we have found putting Apache in front of our webserver has killed
> a whole lot of birds with one stone for us. The fact that we have the
> source code enables us to build in the extras we don't have, and fix the
> bugs we encounter as we go along. Having been down the proprietry
> software layer route already with disasterous consequences I really
> don't want to go that way again.

I share these feelings; nearly trying to get myself certified for using MS
products is not an experience I would want to repeat :-)


James.