Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: Res: Load balancing with NGINX

Posted by Malte Sussdorff on
I would love to, but I can't because that would imply that I had knowledge of POUND.

NGINX was chosen by me because I heard a lot of good things and the documentation for what I needed was easy to understand (I needed the ability to run multiple site behind one IP address, based on host name). From there on I explored more of it's capabilities (run static files from its own directory, act as a reverse proxy to shape traffic, act as a real load balancer, cache images on the harddisk) and with each single step the conf files grew a little bit but are still easy to understand.

Good things I heard: It is blazingly fast and does not harm the resources. It also doubles as an IMAP proxy and has FastCGI support built in. I can verify the blazingly fast. It serves 10 pages per second as a load balancer with cache on a Pentium 4 with 2GB of Ram and the load seldomly gets beyond 0.05, not to mention that pages come up much faster than with just one AOLserver.

Posted by Jose Agustin Lopez Bueno on
Hi again!

Thanks for the info.

I am reading the NGINX docs and it appears more
powerfull than Pound.

In our cluster, we send the static files with apache.
The equation could be:
nginx + aolserver = pound + apache + aolserver

Is it stable nginx? Pound is working very stable
in our installation.

Please, could you send your conf file?