httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Sutherland <>
Subject Re: [module porting] mod_proxy
Date Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:16:28 GMT
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Graham Leggett wrote:
> > "Philippe M. Chiasson" wrote:
> > 
> > > HAving heard about people complaining about mod_proxy implementation, I
> > > was wondering if there is already work being done on porting to 2.0.
> > 
> > I've just finished a patch to fix most of the proxy problems and upgrade
> > it to HTTP/1.1. It's in testing right now, and the next step is to port
> > it to v2.0.
> Do you have time to do it yourself?
> > > The reason is because I would be interested in trying to port it, as well
> > > as add some features taken from mod_backhand, including:
> > > 
> > > +Shared Connection pools
> > > +Potentially find a way to proxy outside of the apache children somehow.
> > > (I think it's not necessary to tie up an httpd children to proxy content)
> Well, suppose request /x is going to be proxied, the apache children that
> got the request will be the one doing the proxying of the content.  In the
> case of a mod_perl server, this is a potential problem, having a mod_perl
> stuck proxying a 6MB file to a 28.8kps user. 
> What I mean by handled outside apache, is another process/thread that
> would be passed the request, freeing the apache children ready to answer a
> new query, and use this super lightweight process to do the actual
> proxying.  It was just something I discussed with Theo (mod_backhand),
> looking for ways to make proxying a lot more efficient

This sounds to me a lot like an httpd accelerator; this way, your mod_perl
server could fire the 6Mb file straight into the accelerator, which then
does the long, slow transfer to the modem user.

> > I'm not sure what you mean by proxy outside apache children?
> Do I make any sense ?

Yes. Could be useful...

Really, an ultra-lightweight HTTP accelerator front-end to Apache would be
very nice. OK, you can use Squid to get a similar effect - but then Apache
doesn't log the user's true IP address, it will miss some files, etc.
Someone here was looking for an encrypting version - this could also be
very nice, IMO...

OK... Nice, lightweight (select()-based?) front-end for reverse proxying,
with a way to pass all the connection info (remote IP etc.) to the back
end Apache.

SSL version of above, to handle the heavy number crunching independently
of the WWW server itself.

Definite possibilities, IMO - thoughts??


View raw message