Hi
there,
I'm trying to use in linux an apache
as front end and seaside images (squeak) as backend for some seaside
applications.
I have to configure a someDomain.com
for them and access the applications as subdirs for
instance:
someDomain.com/KillerApp1
someDomain.com/KillerApp2
They will need to use SSL and
probable load balance but for now I've started simple and I want just
someDomain.com/KillerApp1 with http. So.. this is probably more an apache issue
but is also a realistic seaside production issue so sooner or later we need
to deal with this to produce real value with Seaside.
I've set
the virtual host for that someDomain.com/KillerApp1 like
this
...
<VirtualHost
someInternalIP:80>
ServerName www.someDomain.com ServerAdmin [hidden email] DocumentRoot /srv/www/someDomain.com/ ProxyRequests Off
ProxyPreserveHost On <Location /> Order deny,allow Allow from all ProxyPass http://localhost:9090/seaside/ ProxyPassReverse http://localhost:9090/seaside/ </Location> # <Proxy
*>
# Order Deny,Allow # Deny from all # Allow from 192.168.1 # </Proxy> <Directory
"/srv/www/someDomain.com/">
AllowOverride None Options None Order allow,deny Allow from all </Directory> </VirtualHost> ...
here is the
access_log's tail after requesting someDomain.com/KillerApp1 from links
internet browser in an external network
87.219.84.98 - - [12/Mar/2007:16:10:03 -0300] "GET
/seaside/KillerApp1?_k=LmXMZuwW&_s=kQJrsIPTnYrxlcSh&1 HTTP/1.1" 302 -
"-" "Links (2.1pre18; Linux 2.6.16.13-4-default i686; 102x23)"
87.219.84.98 - - [12/Mar/2007:16:10:04 -0300] "GET /seaside/seaside/KillerApp1 HTTP/1.1" 200 2440 "-" "Links (2.1pre18; Linux 2.6.16.13-4-default i686; 102x23)" 87.219.84.98 - - [12/Mar/2007:16:10:05 -0300] "GET /seaside/files/WAStandardFiles/externalAnchors.js HTTP/1.1" 200 2440 "-" "Links (2.1pre18; Linux 2.6.16.13-4-default i686; 102x23)" 87.219.84.98 - - [12/Mar/2007:16:10:05 -0300] "GET /seaside/files/WAStandardFiles/misc.js HTTP/1.1" 200 2440 "-" "Links (2.1pre18; Linux 2.6.16.13-4-default i686; 102x23)" 87.219.84.98 - - [12/Mar/2007:16:10:05 -0300] "GET /seaside/files/WAStandardFiles/shortcuts.js HTTP/1.1" 200 2440 "-" "Links (2.1pre18; Linux 2.6.16.13-4-default i686; 102x23)" In the
image transcript I can also see that /seaside/ is concatenating more than
once.
any clue on what is
wrong?
_______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
> In the image transcript I can also see that /seaside/ is concatenating more
> than once. > > any clue on what is wrong? I think you forgot to set #serverPath (Seaside 2.7 and later) or #baseUrl: (older versions of Seaside) in your application configuration. I don't think you need to specify ProxyPassReverse, however since I always use RewriteRules for proxying I am not entirely sure. Cheers, Lukas -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
However, another possiblity would be to use FastCGI. There exists a package on
SqueakMap and squeaksource.com: fcgi. Unfortunately Apache doesn't seem to support fastcgi by its newest version 2.2 (although there is a development package), but with e.g. Lighttpd you can get enormous speed advantages. The reason for this is, that you bypass the WAKom, which isn't known as to be very fast... ;) I plan to implement the scgi protocol in this package, too. This way, even the usage of apache shouldn't be any obstacle anymore... Greets, Martin Am Montag 12 März 2007 20:44:21 schrieb Lukas Renggli: > > In the image transcript I can also see that /seaside/ is concatenating > > more than once. > > > > any clue on what is wrong? > > I think you forgot to set #serverPath (Seaside 2.7 and later) or > #baseUrl: (older versions of Seaside) in your application > configuration. I don't think you need to specify ProxyPassReverse, > however since I always use RewriteRules for proxying I am not entirely > sure. > > Cheers, > Lukas _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
On 3/12/07, Martin Beck <[hidden email]> wrote:
> However, another possiblity would be to use FastCGI. There exists a package on > SqueakMap and squeaksource.com: fcgi. Unfortunately Apache doesn't seem to > support fastcgi by its newest version 2.2 (although there is a development > package), but with e.g. Lighttpd you can get enormous speed advantages. Can you document these speed advantages? I've never had the sense that Comanche/WAKom was much of a bottleneck, but I'd love to see numbers. Avi _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Hey, I just came across lighttpd today as well, is it really that much
better than Apache performance-wise? Pretty much the only things we use are rewrites, SSL, proxying and mod_deflate. -Boris -- +1.604.689.0322 DeepCove Labs Ltd. 4th floor 595 Howe Street Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5 http://tinyurl.com/r7uw4 [hidden email] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email is intended only for the persons named in the message header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete the entire message including any attachments. Thank you. > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:seaside- > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Avi Bryant > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:50 PM > To: Seaside - general discussion > Subject: Re: [Seaside] Seaside as backend of apache > > On 3/12/07, Martin Beck <[hidden email]> wrote: > > However, another possiblity would be to use FastCGI. There exists a > package on > > SqueakMap and squeaksource.com: fcgi. Unfortunately Apache doesn't > to > > support fastcgi by its newest version 2.2 (although there is a > development > > package), but with e.g. Lighttpd you can get enormous speed advantages. > > Can you document these speed advantages? I've never had the sense > that Comanche/WAKom was much of a bottleneck, but I'd love to see > numbers. > > Avi > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
In reply to this post by Sebastian Sastre-2
Hello,
current FastCGI timings: on my machine using apache benchmark WAKom allows me to have around 74 requests per second on the example counter (in deployment mode). Using the FastCGI instead of WAKom it comes to 97 requests per second. I still think there is a much higher speedup possible because there is a very high amount of time (around 35%) spent in the primitive socket calls. 97.1% {1620ms} FCGIProtocolVersion1>>requestLoop 50.1% {836ms} FCGIProtocolVersion1>>answerRequest |49.3% {822ms} WAFCGI(WAKom)>>process: | 45.7% {762ms} WAFCGI(WAKom)>>handleRequest: | 45.5% {759ms} WAApplication>>handleRequest: | 45.2% {754ms} WAApplication(WARegistry)>>handleRequest: | 45.2% {754ms} WAApplication>>handleDefaultRequest: | 43.5% {726ms} WASession(WAExpiringHandler)>>handleRequest: | 43.5% {726ms} WASession>>incomingRequest: | 43.5% {726ms} WASession>>responseForRequest: | 42.3% {706ms} WASession>>performRequest: | 42.3% {706ms} WASession>>start: | 41.9% {699ms} WARenderLoopMain>>start: | 41.4% {691ms} WARenderLoop>>run | 41.4% {691ms} WARender>>go | 41.3% {689ms} WARender>>render | 21.3% {355ms} WASession>>respond: | |17.7% {295ms} WASession>>actionUrlForContinuation: | | 16.2% {270ms} WASession>>actionUrlForKey: | | 15.9% {265ms} WAApplication(WARegistry)>>urlForRequestHandler: | | 14.7% {245ms} WAApplication(WARegistry)>>ensureKeyForHandler: | | 14.7% {245ms} WAApplication(WARegistry)>>registerRequestHandler: | | 11.1% {185ms} WAApplication(WARegistry)>>unregisterExpiredHandlers | | |5.6% {93ms} Dictionary>>add: | | | |3.4% {57ms} Dictionary(Set)>>findElementOrNil: | | | | 3.4% {57ms} Dictionary>>scanFor: | | |3.2% {53ms} WASession(WAExpiringHandler)>>isActive | | | 2.4% {40ms} WASession(WAExpiringHandler)>>timeoutSeconds | | 2.5% {42ms} WAExternalID class>>new: | | 2.5% {42ms} WAExternalID>>initialize | | 2.1% {35ms} Character>>to: | 19.7% {329ms} WARender>>buildResponse | 16.8% {280ms} WACounter(WAPresenter)>>renderWithContext: | |16.7% {279ms} WACounter>>renderContentOn: | | 14.5% {242ms} WARenderCanvas(WAHtmlCanvas)>>heading: | | 14.5% {242ms} WAHeadingTag(WATagBrush)>>with: | | 14.2% {237ms} WAHeadingTag(WATagBrush)>>openTag | | 14.1% {235ms} WAHtmlStreamDocument>>openTag:attributes: | | 14.1% {235ms} WAHtmlStreamDocument>>bodyStream | | 14.1% {235ms} WARenderedHtmlRoot(WAHtmlRoot)>>writeOn: | | 13.2% {220ms} WARenderedHtmlRoot(WAHtmlRoot)>>writeHeadOn: | | 8.5% {142ms} WARenderedHtmlRoot>>writeStyle:on: | | |6.4% {107ms} WARenderingContext>>urlForDocument:mimeType: | | | 6.4% {107ms} WARenderingContext>>urlForDocument:mimeType:fileName: | | | 5.1% {85ms} WAApplication(WARegistry)>>urlForRequestHandler: | | | 4.7% {78ms} WAApplication>>baseUrl | | | 2.3% {38ms} WAApplication(WAEntryPoint)>>baseUrl | | | 2.2% {37ms} WAUrl>>addToPath: | | | 2.2% {37ms} ByteString(String)>>findTokens: | | 4.2% {70ms} WARenderedHtmlRoot>>writeScript:on: | | 3.1% {52ms} WARenderingContext>>urlForDocument:mimeType: | | 3.0% {50ms} WARenderingContext>>urlForDocument:mimeType:fileName: | | 2.1% {35ms} WAApplication(WARegistry)>>urlForRequestHandler: | 2.2% {37ms} WARender>>buildDocRoot 41.8% {697ms} FCGIProtocolVersion1>>readRecord: |41.7% {696ms} FCGIProtocolVersion1>>readAnyRecord | 41.7% {696ms} FCGIProtocolVersion1>>readFrom: | 37.0% {617ms} FCGIHeader>>readFrom: | |36.8% {614ms} SocketStream>>uint8 | | 36.8% {614ms} SocketStream>>next | | 36.2% {604ms} SocketStream>>receiveData | | 35.6% {594ms} Socket>>receiveDataSignallingClosedInto:startingAt: | | 35.4% {590ms} Socket>>waitForData | | 35.4% {590ms} Socket>>waitForDataIfClosed: | 4.2% {70ms} FCGIParamRecord>>readFrom: | 3.7% {62ms} ReadStream class(PositionableStream class)>>on: | 3.7% {62ms} ReadStream(PositionableStream)>>on: | 3.7% {62ms} ReadStream(PositionableStream)>>reset 4.8% {80ms} SocketStream>>flush 4.8% {80ms} Socket>>sendData:count: 4.4% {73ms} primitives _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
In reply to this post by Avi Bryant-2
2007/3/13, Avi Bryant <[hidden email]>:
> On 3/12/07, Martin Beck <[hidden email]> wrote: > > However, another possiblity would be to use FastCGI. There exists a package on > > SqueakMap and squeaksource.com: fcgi. Unfortunately Apache doesn't seem to > > support fastcgi by its newest version 2.2 (although there is a development > > package), but with e.g. Lighttpd you can get enormous speed advantages. > > Can you document these speed advantages? I've never had the sense > that Comanche/WAKom was much of a bottleneck, but I'd love to see > numbers. What I can image is that if keep-alive works with fcgi (compared to Kom) that this makes a difference. Philippe > Avi > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
With lighttpd 1.4 keep-alive works for fcgi, and it is used in the current
package. This allows that multiple sequential requests get handled through a single socket. Currently the requests are always processed sequencially over this one socket. The fcgi protocol also allows multiplexing requests but this is not implemented yet. Dominic Am 14.03.2007, 17:44 Uhr, schrieb Philippe Marschall <[hidden email]>: > 2007/3/13, Avi Bryant <[hidden email]>: >> On 3/12/07, Martin Beck <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > However, another possiblity would be to use FastCGI. There exists a >> package on >> > SqueakMap and squeaksource.com: fcgi. Unfortunately Apache doesn't >> seem to >> > support fastcgi by its newest version 2.2 (although there is a >> development >> > package), but with e.g. Lighttpd you can get enormous speed >> advantages. >> >> Can you document these speed advantages? I've never had the sense >> that Comanche/WAKom was much of a bottleneck, but I'd love to see >> numbers. > > What I can image is that if keep-alive works with fcgi (compared to > Kom) that this makes a difference. > > Philippe > >> Avi >> _______________________________________________ >> Seaside mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside >> > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |