On Friday, December 18, 2009, Yuval Hager <yhager@yhager.com> wrote:
> Will this approach work for fcgi too? I am trying to stay apache-free. Also
> the app (Drupal-5 hacked) does not support reverse proxy without careful
> patching.

I think proxy_cache works for fastcgi as well, but I am not positive.
We proxy via http to JBoss/Tomcat backend servers in our environment.

If your app doesn't support reverse proxy, it is probably broken for
many people on the Internet, as it likely is broken in forward proxies
too. Doing some assumptions in redirects or imprperly assuming various
environmentals or the use of mod_php (such as http versus https, or
using hostnames copied from the Host header instead of relative URLs.)
A lot lof our in-house stuff had similar problems when we first
switched to a layer-7 load balancer, and cleanup was a pain. But the
apps are a lot
more portable and flexible as a result.

Fix Drupal maybe? It is open source ;-)

>
> Is there any performance comparison for nginx with fcgi/php vs apache/mod-
> php?
> My reasoning was that since I don't need a full blown web server in the
> back, it better just be a php processor, so I went the fcgi route. f means
> fast, doesn't it?

I think it likely depends more on the perfoance of you fastcgi wrapper
for PHP than the web server. That's where the bottleneck is usually.


--
RPM

_______________________________________________
nginx mailing list
nginx@nginx.org
http://nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx