On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 08:13 +0100, Daniel wrote:
> Has anyone seen, or have, any links that can help outline the
> difference?
Questions like that very often get answers based on comparing
a new-and-better solution against something ancient -
like a 1997 apache version.
There's nothing wrong with this answer in particular,
but I think answers like this do need challenging
(you've got another followup that appears to be
premised on an outdated description of mod_proxy).
> * Lower web server processing overhead in general
Lower than what? And why?
> * Resolves substantial performance degradation when the web server
> DocumentRoot is on a slow filesystem
Bizarre. Why would you put document root on a slow filesystem?
In any case, proxy requests run without reference either to
documentroot or the filesystem. Unless you go out of your way
to make your server complex and inefficient!
> * Resolves 403 errors for URIs which cannot be mapped to the
> filesystem due to the filesystem length restrictions
WTF? Filesystem length restrictions? That smells of MSDOS
8.3 filenames. Is there really any modern platform that
might be affected, or was the author of that scraping the
bottom of the barrel for marketing claims?
I'm sure mod_wl has its merits, but claims like these do
it no favours. Or can you substantiate them?
--
Nick Kew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|