Swazoo as reverse proxy?
Locked
 
|
Hello Web Smalltalkers,
I'm thinking for a while to add a reverse proxy support to Swazoo so that we won't need Apache anymore, at least for all but the very large websites. And such "all but" sites are probably 99%, and that means that Swazoo is able to serve those 99% of our sites, but you could safely switch to Apache later when needed. Another advantage is that you are running everything in Smalltalk and have therefore a control down to the last bit sent to the TCP socket. Not to mention that you don't need to learn some other setup like Apache, which is not the easiest thing to learn. Reverse proxying will also allow load balancing of many images behind the Swazoo, or run many different sites, each on its own image, etc. So, what do you think? Is it a good idea, do you see any obstacles? Best regards Janko -- Janko Mivšek Maintainer of Swazoo _______________________________________________ Aida mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:20:01 +0100
Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote: > Reverse proxying will also allow load balancing of many images behind > the Swazoo, or run many different sites, each on its own image, etc. I know that we're on the AIDA list right now, but reverse proxying for e.g. Seaside would require "sticky sessions", i.e. requests for the same sessions need to be forwarded to the same host. Hm. I think it's probably the same with AIDA, unless you have other means of exchanging state between independent images. > So, what do you think? Is it a good idea, do you see any obstacles? Out of curiosity, how would you run a Swazoo-based reverse proxy on a multi-core machine? As a "proxy-only" image assigned to a single core? And then a few application images for each other core? s. _______________________________________________ Aida mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida |
Re: Swazoo as reverse proxy?
|
|
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Janko Mivšek wrote:
> Hello Web Smalltalkers, > > I'm thinking for a while to add a reverse proxy support to Swazoo so > that we won't need Apache anymore, at least for all but the very large > websites. And such "all but" sites are probably 99%, and that means that > Swazoo is able to serve those 99% of our sites, but you could safely > switch to Apache later when needed. > > Another advantage is that you are running everything in Smalltalk and > have therefore a control down to the last bit sent to the TCP socket. > Not to mention that you don't need to learn some other setup like > Apache, which is not the easiest thing to learn. > > Reverse proxying will also allow load balancing of many images behind > the Swazoo, or run many different sites, each on its own image, etc. > > So, what do you think? Is it a good idea, do you see any obstacles? Hello Janko, Personally, I think it is a great idea. I believe that Swazoo/AIDA/Web/Scribo and the developing platform coming from here providing the ability to have an all Smalltalk Web development and deployment stack is a tremendous thing. You look at some stacks out there, Rails, Django, etc. you have so many different tools to learn. And if your goal is to optimize your stack, even more tools. Squid, Varnish, Memcache, ... on and on it goes. With Smalltalk we have the opportunity to provide a nicely performant, simple and well capable web stack. All in one language. Often, all in one image. Very nice. From my simple experience, I think that this stack can reasonable out perform most of the others out of the box experiences. We may or may not equal or exceed their optimized experience, but we don't have to go through the grief to get there. Rails, Django, Plone, etc. are not high performing without a lot of tweaking. So they tweak, and tweak, and tweak. To me this is enabling technology. Technology that enables not just the technology experts, but the idea guys/gals. If I can reasonably stay all Smalltalk and just throw more boxes on the rack in order to scale, then I will be very happy. If I have to add another tool to my stack, then the closer to its out of box use that I can stay the better. I don't want to have to be an Apache expert or hire one. Boxes are getting faster. Smalltalk's performance can be improved. I know much effort is going on in Squeak for such. The simpler we can keep things, the faster and more productive we can become. We can then accomplish faster and easier what others require armies of programmers for. :) Don't worry about the naysayers. For those who have a different vision and want to use all of the other tools. May God richly bless them and make them fruitful on their journey. But don't let it sway you from a vision of a high quality all Smalltalk stack. The process for fixing bugs, security issues, etc. is so much better in Smalltalk. Lets stay Smalltalk. :) Smalltalk/Swazoo/AIDA/Web/Scribo enabling technology, enabling ideas. :) Lets build it, and they will come. Time is on our side. Smalltalk has seen many languages, platforms and tools come and go. It has watched the next great thing, come and go. Uh oh! Better stop. I'm preaching to the choir. :) Jimmie _______________________________________________ Aida mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida |
Re: [Seaside] Swazoo as reverse proxy?
|
|
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Lukas Renggli wrote:
>> So, what do you think? Is it a good idea, do you see any obstacles? > In my opinion Smalltalk is not competitive when it comes to > reading/writing bytes from/to pipes, sockets and files. There are > other systems that can handle that much more efficiently. Swazoo is not there to compete with Apache, but to help our web frameworks to easier compete with other frameworks. As we are proud on Smalltalk as a simple dev.environment yet able to cope with most complex problems, let be proud for our web stuff too, and here the Swazoo's role is to preserve that simplicity. Namely, simplicity is one of biggest reasons why we are competitive to others. But let me repeat, not for everything, because after Swazoo stops to be performant enough, you can always switch to Apache. So, you start simple with Swazoo and have an open path to the most demanding web serving with Apache or other web servers. Apache is more performant, no doubt, and will always be, but that's not the point, the point is that for most of our web server needs Swazoo is just good enough, but much simpler for Smalltalkers to use than Apache. Janko -- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si _______________________________________________ Aida mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida |
Re: [Seaside] Swazoo as reverse proxy?
|
|
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Avi Bryant wrote: > Does Swazoo support SSL connections? If not, I would say it's not > worth it, since you'll need some external service to provide > HTTPS->HTTP proxying. Swazoo 1 on VW supported it while Swazoo 2 not yet. But I would say SSL is a special case, one of which then justifies use of Apache from the start. Best regards Janko -- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si _______________________________________________ Aida mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida |
«
Return to AIDA/Web
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |