This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C12FF2.81588DE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello folks,
I have a ton of questions. Probably best to just get started.
1) Does mod_backhand do a true "http 1.1" connection from the apache mod =
backhand server to the remote server?
2) Is there a way to have mod backhand backhand a request to a server =
which is NOT running mod backhand? It looks as if the backhand servers =
are "discovered" when they broadcast the performance data. If the =
performance data is never broadcast from a server (because mod backhand =
is not installed) can mod backhand still backhand the request to that =
server. Also, please note I mean backhand (proxy) not http redirect to =
the other server!
3) The reason for both the above questions is I would like mod_backhand =
to backhand to some NT IIS web servers. Obviously they cannot run =
mod_backhand as it only runs on unix.
4) Is there any plans to update mod_backhand to work with the new apache =
2.0 module api?
5) It looks as if mod_backhand supports SSL connections to the backhand =
server, and then backhands using standard http (without ssl). Is this =
correct? If this is the case, is any sort of SSL header information =
forwarded to the secondary servers? I.E. if a connection comes in via =
https to server 1 which backhands via http to server 2 is there anyway =
for a script or cgi program on server2 to check that the connection (to =
server 1) used ssl? Ideally It would be nice if this were done in such =
a way that all current cgi scripts which check for SSL information would =
still work properly without modification. Effectively faking server 2 =
cgi scripts into thinking that ssl was performed directly to them. In =
this way people developing scripts would not need to have any special =
knowledge of the setup of the server systems and would be able to hand =
ssl as normal.
6) if #5 is done in apache only setups, what are the forwarded ssl =
headers and sample values so I could write an ISAPI filter on NT IIS to =
make use of the SSL header infor on NT scripts.
7) is there a real advantage to spliting up "heavy weight" apache =
processes from "light weight" ones and forwarding to light weight =
processes from heavyweight ones? Isn't a new apache process needed for =
each client connection to the mod backhand machine, and then one for =
each backhanded request. (of course with some benefit to the http 1.1 =
upgrade) I.E. I am going to use two apache processes to do the work =
that could be just as easily accomplished with one?
8) Basically what I am hoping to do here is have a heavy weight apache =
process running mod backhand forward all requests for *.asp pages to an =
NT server. Any request that is not for an *.asp page should be serviced =
by the same server running the heavy weight apache process. Is this =
possible? How would I accomplish it? Is there any benefit to having a =
separate "heavy weight" apache process which would handle mod backhand, =
ssl, user/pass authentication, mod re-write, logging, etc, and then =
light weight processes which would serve .htm pages and handle normal =
linux php, cgi, perl processes?
Thanks for all your help everyone.
rob
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C12FF2.81588DE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3315.2870" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hello folks,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I have a ton of =
questions. =20
Probably best to just get started.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>1) Does mod_backhand do a true "http =
1.1"=20
connection from the apache mod backhand server to the remote=20
server?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>2) Is there a way to have mod backhand =
backhand a=20
request to a server which is NOT running mod backhand? It looks as =
if the=20
backhand servers are "discovered" when they broadcast the performance=20
data. If the performance data is never broadcast from a server =
(because=20
mod backhand is not installed) can mod backhand still backhand the =
request to=20
that server. Also, please note I mean backhand (proxy) not http =
redirect=20
to the other server!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>3) The reason for both the above =
questions is I=20
would like mod_backhand to backhand to some NT IIS web servers. =
Obviously=20
they cannot run mod_backhand as it only runs on unix.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>4) Is there any plans to update =
mod_backhand to=20
work with the new apache 2.0 module api?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>5) It looks as if mod_backhand supports =
SSL=20
connections to the backhand server, and then backhands using standard =
http=20
(without ssl). Is this correct? If this is the case, is any =
sort of=20
SSL header information forwarded to the secondary servers? I.E. if =
a=20
connection comes in via https to server 1 which backhands via http to =
server 2=20
is there anyway for a script or cgi program on server2 to check that the =
connection (to server 1) used ssl? Ideally It would be nice if =
this were=20
done in such a way that all current cgi scripts which check for SSL =
information=20
would still work properly without modification. Effectively faking =
server=20
2 cgi scripts into thinking that ssl was performed directly to =
them. In=20
this way people developing scripts would not need to have any special =
knowledge=20
of the setup of the server systems and would be able to hand ssl as=20
normal.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>6) if #5 is done in apache only setups, =
what are=20
the forwarded ssl headers and sample values so I could write an ISAPI =
filter on=20
NT IIS to make use of the SSL header infor on NT scripts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>7) is there a real advantage to =
spliting up "heavy=20
weight" apache processes from "light weight" ones and forwarding to =
light weight=20
processes from heavyweight ones? Isn't a new apache process needed =
for=20
each client connection to the mod backhand machine, and then one for =
each=20
backhanded request. (of course with some benefit to the http 1.1=20
upgrade) I.E. I am going to use two apache processes to do the =
work that=20
could be just as easily accomplished with one?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>8) Basically what I am hoping to =
do here is=20
have a heavy weight apache process running mod backhand forward all =
requests for=20
*.asp pages to an NT server. Any request that is not for an *.asp =
page=20
should be serviced by the same server running the heavy weight apache=20
process. Is this possible? How would I accomplish it? =
Is there=20
any benefit to having a separate "heavy weight" apache process which =
would=20
handle mod backhand, ssl, user/pass authentication, mod re-write, =
logging, etc,=20
and then light weight processes which would serve .htm pages and handle =
normal=20
linux php, cgi, perl processes?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks for all your help =
everyone.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>rob</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C12FF2.81588DE0--
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C12FF2.81588DE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello folks,
I have a ton of questions. Probably best to just get started.
1) Does mod_backhand do a true "http 1.1" connection from the apache mod =
backhand server to the remote server?
2) Is there a way to have mod backhand backhand a request to a server =
which is NOT running mod backhand? It looks as if the backhand servers =
are "discovered" when they broadcast the performance data. If the =
performance data is never broadcast from a server (because mod backhand =
is not installed) can mod backhand still backhand the request to that =
server. Also, please note I mean backhand (proxy) not http redirect to =
the other server!
3) The reason for both the above questions is I would like mod_backhand =
to backhand to some NT IIS web servers. Obviously they cannot run =
mod_backhand as it only runs on unix.
4) Is there any plans to update mod_backhand to work with the new apache =
2.0 module api?
5) It looks as if mod_backhand supports SSL connections to the backhand =
server, and then backhands using standard http (without ssl). Is this =
correct? If this is the case, is any sort of SSL header information =
forwarded to the secondary servers? I.E. if a connection comes in via =
https to server 1 which backhands via http to server 2 is there anyway =
for a script or cgi program on server2 to check that the connection (to =
server 1) used ssl? Ideally It would be nice if this were done in such =
a way that all current cgi scripts which check for SSL information would =
still work properly without modification. Effectively faking server 2 =
cgi scripts into thinking that ssl was performed directly to them. In =
this way people developing scripts would not need to have any special =
knowledge of the setup of the server systems and would be able to hand =
ssl as normal.
6) if #5 is done in apache only setups, what are the forwarded ssl =
headers and sample values so I could write an ISAPI filter on NT IIS to =
make use of the SSL header infor on NT scripts.
7) is there a real advantage to spliting up "heavy weight" apache =
processes from "light weight" ones and forwarding to light weight =
processes from heavyweight ones? Isn't a new apache process needed for =
each client connection to the mod backhand machine, and then one for =
each backhanded request. (of course with some benefit to the http 1.1 =
upgrade) I.E. I am going to use two apache processes to do the work =
that could be just as easily accomplished with one?
8) Basically what I am hoping to do here is have a heavy weight apache =
process running mod backhand forward all requests for *.asp pages to an =
NT server. Any request that is not for an *.asp page should be serviced =
by the same server running the heavy weight apache process. Is this =
possible? How would I accomplish it? Is there any benefit to having a =
separate "heavy weight" apache process which would handle mod backhand, =
ssl, user/pass authentication, mod re-write, logging, etc, and then =
light weight processes which would serve .htm pages and handle normal =
linux php, cgi, perl processes?
Thanks for all your help everyone.
rob
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C12FF2.81588DE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3315.2870" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hello folks,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I have a ton of =
questions. =20
Probably best to just get started.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>1) Does mod_backhand do a true "http =
1.1"=20
connection from the apache mod backhand server to the remote=20
server?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>2) Is there a way to have mod backhand =
backhand a=20
request to a server which is NOT running mod backhand? It looks as =
if the=20
backhand servers are "discovered" when they broadcast the performance=20
data. If the performance data is never broadcast from a server =
(because=20
mod backhand is not installed) can mod backhand still backhand the =
request to=20
that server. Also, please note I mean backhand (proxy) not http =
redirect=20
to the other server!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>3) The reason for both the above =
questions is I=20
would like mod_backhand to backhand to some NT IIS web servers. =
Obviously=20
they cannot run mod_backhand as it only runs on unix.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>4) Is there any plans to update =
mod_backhand to=20
work with the new apache 2.0 module api?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>5) It looks as if mod_backhand supports =
SSL=20
connections to the backhand server, and then backhands using standard =
http=20
(without ssl). Is this correct? If this is the case, is any =
sort of=20
SSL header information forwarded to the secondary servers? I.E. if =
a=20
connection comes in via https to server 1 which backhands via http to =
server 2=20
is there anyway for a script or cgi program on server2 to check that the =
connection (to server 1) used ssl? Ideally It would be nice if =
this were=20
done in such a way that all current cgi scripts which check for SSL =
information=20
would still work properly without modification. Effectively faking =
server=20
2 cgi scripts into thinking that ssl was performed directly to =
them. In=20
this way people developing scripts would not need to have any special =
knowledge=20
of the setup of the server systems and would be able to hand ssl as=20
normal.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>6) if #5 is done in apache only setups, =
what are=20
the forwarded ssl headers and sample values so I could write an ISAPI =
filter on=20
NT IIS to make use of the SSL header infor on NT scripts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>7) is there a real advantage to =
spliting up "heavy=20
weight" apache processes from "light weight" ones and forwarding to =
light weight=20
processes from heavyweight ones? Isn't a new apache process needed =
for=20
each client connection to the mod backhand machine, and then one for =
each=20
backhanded request. (of course with some benefit to the http 1.1=20
upgrade) I.E. I am going to use two apache processes to do the =
work that=20
could be just as easily accomplished with one?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>8) Basically what I am hoping to =
do here is=20
have a heavy weight apache process running mod backhand forward all =
requests for=20
*.asp pages to an NT server. Any request that is not for an *.asp =
page=20
should be serviced by the same server running the heavy weight apache=20
process. Is this possible? How would I accomplish it? =
Is there=20
any benefit to having a separate "heavy weight" apache process which =
would=20
handle mod backhand, ssl, user/pass authentication, mod re-write, =
logging, etc,=20
and then light weight processes which would serve .htm pages and handle =
normal=20
linux php, cgi, perl processes?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks for all your help =
everyone.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>rob</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C12FF2.81588DE0--