[Nitro] Q about mongrel && nitro
zedshaw at zedshaw.com
Sun Aug 6 04:03:15 EDT 2006
On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 19:56 +0200, Alexander Lazic wrote:
> On Sam 05.08.2006 10:35, Zed Shaw wrote:
> >On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 09:18 +0200, Alexander Lazic wrote:
> >Yes, exactly, but if it's in the standard some dip will start exploring
> >it and use it in his next piece of crap social network.
> >Ok, now that I got that off my chest. :-)
> Thanks to open it a little bit ;-)
> What do you think to add a *switch* so that we can use some
> proxy-modules which are use the keep-alive without the pipline ;-)
> What i think about is such behaviour:
> Default => Connection: close
> with --keep-alive be RFC conform ;-)
No. If your proxy doesn't close the connection when it encounters
"Connection: close" then ***it's*** not following the standard. That's
why Mongrel does it. So that it can process one request at a time but
still follow the standard. Simply not sending this header does not
magically make Mongrel descend into the nasty ugly part of the RFC
around "keep-alive" and "pipe-lining".
Finally, while you may think "keep alive" and "pipe line" are different,
they aren't. It's kind of like saying a salmon is different from a
fish. You need one to have the other, so there's no point arguing some
imaginary difference between the two.
Anyway, not gonna happen any time soon, and it's not really needed.
It's a *huge* (let me repeat, gigantic, massive *all fake*) myth that
turning keep-alives on and pipe-lining requests over HTTP makes your app
faster. It's a load of bull that had dubious motivations (think MS vs.
Netscape) back in the day when clients were pathetic (things changed
thanks to DDoS) and was backed by sad little statistics.
Sorry, but people who fret over keep-alive and pipe-lining I've found
either use broken proxies or don't want to design their services around
Zed A. Shaw
http://www.railsmachine.com/ -- Need Mongrel support?
More information about the Nitro-general