"two stage" web serving - Not dead, just resting.

Kyrian kyrian at ore.org
Mon Jul 21 21:20:39 UTC 2008


>
> My conclusion is that two stage static (tux) and dynamic (apache) web 
> serving is no longer an option.
>
> It looks like I'll have to run Fedora as a server with just apache - 
> no tux. 
I'll bite on this one. I'm going to be quite vague, though ;-)

As I understand it, the gist of the argument is that since various 
changes in the 2.6 kernel allow for serving of static content much 
faster in eg. Apache ("sendfile" IIRC), it is no longer necessary to 
have TUX in-kernel, and hence development has been largely suspended.

That is not to say, however, that "two stage" web serving is redundant 
or should be abandoned, even with multiple IP addresses on the same 
physical server. You only have to look at the memory footprint of a php 
or mod_perl enabled Apache server to see why.

My personal experience on several projects is that it is well worth 
pursuing a "two stage" method.

However I'm not going to do all your work for you (and by virtue of the 
list archive, a lot of other people's work for them), so it will have to 
suffice to say that there are at least three different web servers which 
are well supported, cater for static content service, fast, and without 
a bloated memory footprint.

I'll give you a little hint, and say that the keyword you are probably 
looking for is 'comparison' rather than 'static', though...?

Beyond that, talk to me off-list and I can help more, probably for a fee 
though ;-)

K.

-- 
Kev Green, aka Kyrian. E: kyrian@ore.org WWW: http://kyrian.ore.org/
Linux/Security Contractor/LAMP Coder/ISP, via http://www.orenet.co.uk/
                 DJ via http://www.hellnoise.co.uk/




More information about the tux-list mailing list