[Mono-list] Re: XSP / mod_mono / Apache Question

Nate Chadwick nate.chadwick at gmail.com
Sun Apr 16 03:17:43 EDT 2006


Thanks for the breakdown.  I want to make sure I understand what you are
saying correctly.  When you say "enabled for mass hosting"  what does that
mean specifically?  Does that mean supports a large number of virtual hosts
or something else?

Also, I suppose that with mod_proxy another plus may be that the xsp server
process could be physically located on another machine(s).


On 4/15/06, Robert Jordan <robertj at gmx.net> wrote:
> Nate,
> >     Does anyone know what are the advantages/disadvantages of using
> mod_mono
> > with apache versus setting up apache with mod_proxy to proxy an XSP
> server
> > running on a private port?  I know that this is a common practice in the
> > Java world with Tomcat/application servers and was just curious if there
> was
> > a reason that that approach would not be recommended for mono and XSP.
> mod_mono:
> + performs better (it uses Unix domain sockets to communicate
>    with the Mono server. The response headers doesn't need to be
>    parsed/rewritten.)
> + faster file transfers
> + common URL namespace with Apache (if AddHandler is used)
> + autohosting: http://www.mono-project.com/AutoHosting
> + enabled for mass hosting
> mod_proxy + mod_proxy_http:
> + ability to run the app server under a different UID
>    (mod_mono is supposed to support this too)
> - the app server process cannot be controlled by Apache
> - difficult mass hosting
> Robert
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-list/attachments/20060416/189c2d4a/attachment.html

More information about the Mono-list mailing list