Apache behind nginx

Это как же надо нагрузить Апач, чтобы он перестал справляться? Хотя, оно понятно, при всех своих достоинствах, Апач не настолько быстр, как мог бы быть при отсутствии своей великомудрости.
Если простые запросы отдать простому веб-серверу, Апачу останутся только сложные. И все довольны - пользователи, админы, сайтостроители...

Апач по-за нгинксом:

To avoid moving resources around, and the overhead this would entail, the most simple solution would be to place a proxy in front of Apache. This would examine the incoming HTTP request and dispatch it to either:

* Apache if it were a request for /cgi-bin/
* Another dedicated server for all static resources (e.g. *.gif, *.png)

The decision to use nginx was pretty simple, there are a few different proxies out there which are well regarded (including pound which we've previously introduced for simple load-balancing). nginx looked like the most likely candidate because it focuses upon being both a fast HTTP server and a proxy.

By working as a proxy and a HTTP server this cuts down the software we must use. Had we chosen a dedicated proxy-only tool we'd have needed to have three servers running:

* The proxy to receive requests.
o Apache2 for serving the dynamic content.
o HTTP server for static content.

With nginx in place we have a simpler setup with only two servers running:

* nginx to accept requests and immediately serve static content.
o Apache to receive the dynamic requests that nginx didn't want to handle.

debian-administration.org/article/Speeding_up_dynamic_websites_via_an_nginx_proxy


Сцылки дня:

• Релиз-кандидат Thunderbird3.
• Thunderbird3 RC1.
• Growl - фреймворк нотификационных сообщений.