6 messages in ru.sysoev.nginxRe: nginx vs apache as a reverse proxy
FromSent OnAttachments
Linden VarleyMar 1, 2009 10:43 pm 
Chang SongMar 2, 2009 2:19 am 
Cliff WellsMar 2, 2009 3:07 pm 
Linden VarleyMar 2, 2009 7:16 pm 
Cliff WellsMar 2, 2009 8:11 pm 
Linden VarleyMar 3, 2009 5:00 pm 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: nginx vs apache as a reverse proxyActions...
From:Chang Song (Chan@me.com)
Date:Mar 2, 2009 2:19:44 am
List:ru.sysoev.nginx

I have found similar issue before. Usually it is the number of sockets in TIME_WAIT (due to non keepalive).

Do you have KeepAlive in the backend Apache server? Try to widen local_port_range and number of sockets in TIME_WAIT.

tcp_max_tw_buckets=800000 (YMMV) tcp_tw_recycle=1 tcp_tw_resue=1 tcp_timestamps=1 (usually performance hit, but in this situation, it will help)

On Mar 2, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Linden Varley wrote:

I’m doing some simple testing on a FreeBSD 7.0 server comparing Apache2 vs Nginx as a reverse proxy to an Apache backend server. The backend serves mainly static images using mod_python.

I have yet to do thorough testing but it seems as though Apache2 has slightly higher throughput (KB/s measured using Jmeter) when compared to Nginx under moderate load.

Has anyone else found Apache to have a higher throughput as a reverse proxy? Can I assume it’s because Nginx doesn’t use http keep- alives to backend servers and thus creates a new connection upon each request?

Cheers - Linden

The contents of this email are confidential and may be subject to legal or professional privilege and copyright. No representation is made that this email is free of viruses or other defects. If you have received this communication in error, you may not copy or distribute any part of it or otherwise disclose its contents to anyone. Please advise the sender of your incorrect receipt of this correspondence.