apache 1.3.26 reverse proxy

[E Kolve <ek...@corp.classmates.com>]

Has anyone noticed any performance problems using 1.3.26 as the front 
end proxy to a backend mod_perl server?

I upgraded a box running apache 1.3.22 as the frontend proxy to 1.3.26. 
  Prior to upgrading the load was ~2.0 - 3.0. After upgrading, the load 
went up to around 21 - 25.  I then downgraded and the load went back to 
normal.  Could this have anything to do with the changes to mod_proxy 
between 1.3.22 and 1.3.26? Any ideas?

--eric

Re: apache 1.3.26 reverse proxy

[Igor Sysoev <is...@rambler-co.ru>]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, E Kolve wrote:

> I was watching the apache scoreboard file and it appeared the the 
> mod_perl process was not being immediately freed by the proxy.  Normally 
> there will be 3 or 4 mod_perl procs in mode "W" Sending Reply, but after 
> around 20 - 30 seconds on 1.3.26 as the proxy all 30 (that is my 
> MaxClients for mod_perl) were in "W".  This seems like a problem with 
> either the IOBufferSize that was recently added or possibly something to 
> do with the proxy not releasing the mod_perl process once it has gotten 
> the last byte...

You can try mod_accel. Incomplete English documentation is available here:
http://dapi.chaz.ru/articles/mod_accel.xml
Also feel free to ask me directly.

Igor Sysoev
http://sysoev.ru

Re: apache 1.3.26 reverse proxy

[Roger Pettett <rm...@sanger.ac.uk>]

Could this be a keepalive issue? I think keepalive support was fiddled 
with in recent mod_proxies.

R.

Re: apache 1.3.26 reverse proxy

[E Kolve <ek...@corp.classmates.com>]

I was watching the apache scoreboard file and it appeared the the 
mod_perl process was not being immediately freed by the proxy.  Normally 
there will be 3 or 4 mod_perl procs in mode "W" Sending Reply, but after 
around 20 - 30 seconds on 1.3.26 as the proxy all 30 (that is my 
MaxClients for mod_perl) were in "W".  This seems like a problem with 
either the IOBufferSize that was recently added or possibly something to 
do with the proxy not releasing the mod_perl process once it has gotten 
the last byte...

--eric


David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> E Kolve <ek...@corp.classmates.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>Has anyone noticed any performance problems using 1.3.26 as the front
>>end proxy to a backend mod_perl server?
>>
>>I upgraded a box running apache 1.3.22 as the frontend proxy to
>>1.3.26. Prior to upgrading the load was ~2.0 - 3.0. After upgrading,
>>the load went up to around 21 - 25.  I then downgraded and the load
>>went back to normal.  Could this have anything to do with the changes
>>to mod_proxy between 1.3.22 and 1.3.26? Any ideas?
> 
> 
> You don't actually talk about any performance problem.  Were the
> proxied requests in fact running slowly?  It seems to me a difference
> in the process structure or what how they wait could have horrible
> effects on the load average numbers while actually improving
> performance.  Or not.  

Re: apache 1.3.26 reverse proxy

[David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>]

E Kolve <ek...@corp.classmates.com> writes:

> Has anyone noticed any performance problems using 1.3.26 as the front
> end proxy to a backend mod_perl server?
> 
> I upgraded a box running apache 1.3.22 as the frontend proxy to
> 1.3.26. Prior to upgrading the load was ~2.0 - 3.0. After upgrading,
> the load went up to around 21 - 25.  I then downgraded and the load
> went back to normal.  Could this have anything to do with the changes
> to mod_proxy between 1.3.22 and 1.3.26? Any ideas?

You don't actually talk about any performance problem.  Were the
proxied requests in fact running slowly?  It seems to me a difference
in the process structure or what how they wait could have horrible
effects on the load average numbers while actually improving
performance.  Or not.  
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net  /  New TMDA anti-spam in test
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
         New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info