httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Fee <>
Subject Re: Talking about proxy workers
Date Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:30:33 GMT
Rainer Jung wrote:

> Minor additions inside.
> On 06.08.2010 14:49, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Paul Fee
>>> Sent: Freitag, 6. August 2010 14:44
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: Talking about proxy workers
>>> Also, is it possible to setup these three reuse styles for a
>>> forward proxy?
>>> 1: No reuse, close the connection after this request.
>> Yes, this the default.
>>> 2: Reuse connection, but only for the client that caused its creation.
>> No.
> Even if you configure pooled connections like in the example given in 3,
> the connections are returned to the pool after each request/response
> cycle. They are not directly associated with the client connection.
> But: if the MPM is prefork, the client connection is handled by a single
> process which doesn't handle any other requests during the life of the
> client connection. Since pools are process local, in this case the pool
> will always return the same connection (the only connection in the
> pool). Note that this pooled connection will not be closed when the
> client connection is closed. It can live longer or shorter than the
> client connection and you can't tie their lifetime together.
> Whether the proxy operates in forward or reverse mode doesn't matter, it
> only matters how the pool aka worker is configured. See 3.
>>> 3: Pool connection for reuse by any client.
>> Yes, but this is needed separately for every origin server you forward
>> to:
>> <Proxy>
>>     # Set an arbitrary parameter to trigger the creation of a worker
>>     ProxySet keepalive=on
>> </Proxy>
> Pools are associated with workers, and workers are identified by origin
> URL. In case of a reverse proxy you often only have a few origin
> servers, so pooling works fine. In case of a forward proxy you often
> have an enormous amount of origin servers, each only visited every now
> and then. So using persistent connections is less effective. It would
> only make some sense, if we could optionally tie together client
> connections and origin server connections.
> Regards,
> Rainer

I'm using the worker MPM, so connection sharing between clients can happen.

As you've pointed out, pooling works well for reverse proxies as there are 
few backends and the hit rate is high.  For forward proxies, there are 
numerous destinations and the pool hit rate will be low.  The pool has a 
cost due to multi-threaded access to a single data structure, I presume 
locks protect the connection pool.  Locks can limit scalability.

I'm wondering if pools should be restricted to the reverse proxy case.  
Forward proxies would couple the proxy->origin server connection to the 
client side connection.  Since connections can not be shared, there's no 
need for locking.  We'd loss the opportunity to share, but since the 
probability of a pool hit by another client is low, that loss should be 

Essentially, I'm asking if it would make sense to implement "2: Reuse 
connection, but only for the client that caused its creation".  This could 
be a configurable proxy worker setting.


View raw message