Subrequests, keepalives, mod_proxy in 2.1

["Akins, Brian" <Br...@turner.com>]

>From the best I can tell, subrequests do not get the benefits of keepalives
in mod_proxy in 2.1.  What is the reason for this?


-- 
Brian Akins
Lead Systems Engineer
CNN Internet Technologies

Re: Subrequests, keepalives, mod_proxy in 2.1

[Brian Akins <ba...@web.turner.com>]

Graham Leggett wrote:
> Akins, Brian wrote:
>
> Proxy in 2.1 now has a connection pool, and my understanding is that 
> this restriction has fallen away - subrequests should take advantage of 
> the connection pool just like normal requests can.

So, can this check be removed?  I'll submit a patch when I get a chance.




-- 
Brian Akins
Lead Systems Engineer
CNN Internet Technologies

Re: Subrequests, keepalives, mod_proxy in 2.1

[Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>]

Akins, Brian wrote:

> From the best I can tell, subrequests do not get the benefits of keepalives
> in mod_proxy in 2.1.  What is the reason for this?

The original reason was that there was a one to one relationship between 
a keepalive connection on the browser and a keepalive to the backend. A 
subrequest could not be serviced by a backend keepalive, as that backend 
could potentially have been in a proxied request already.

Proxy in 2.1 now has a connection pool, and my understanding is that 
this restriction has fallen away - subrequests should take advantage of 
the connection pool just like normal requests can.

Regards,
Graham
--