Update:Archive/2.0/Architecture and General Design/Infrastructure: Difference between revisions

Update:Archive/2.0/Architecture and General Design/Infrastructure (view source)

Revision as of 05:42, 23 March 2005

231 bytes added , 23 March 2005

→‎Web/Application Servers

Justdave

Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti

674

edits

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 == Web/Application Servers ==
-We are using Apache2 + PHP 4 on top of Linux machines right now.  Right now, we only have one application server and we need to fix that asap.  The current application server is running RHEL 3.
+We are using Apache2 + PHP 4 on top of Linux machines right now.  Right now, we only have one application server for addons/pfs and we need to fix that asap.  The current application server is running RHEL 3.
-:Are there plans to split the extensions update service from the Application Update service since one is just static RDF files, the other is dynamic? Could the static RDF files be served from something other than Apache, perhaps a lightweight HTTPD? Perhaps not necessary if Squid was cahcing them, but I'm putting the idea out there. --[[User:Csogilvie|Csogilvie]] 12:00, 22 Jan 2005 (PST)
+The Application Update Service now lives on a separate webserver running Apache2+prefork, without the assistance of squid.  The actual update.mozilla.org domain is served from this box, too.  We discovered by trial and error (and my was it an error!) that Apache is much more efficient at handling 301/302 redirects than squid+squirm is, and that we have far less load if we just serve the RDF file from update.mozilla.org if that's the domain the client browser requests it from (which should slowly diminish as people upgrade) instead of redirecting them to aus.mozilla.org.  Requests for URIs that belong to PFS or addons are redirected to those domains.
-Yes, we're looking at a separating AUS.
--alanjstr