Bill Moseley wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:46:31PM -0500, Dave Seff wrote:
> 
>>I have looked at SWISHED. The one thin I wanted to avoid is apache.
>>Swishd uses persistant connections and forks with each new connection.
>>It doesn't not do any cacheing although I don't see any reason why it
>>shouldn't have it.
> 
> 
> Avoid Apache to save memory?  Or why?  I wonder how your code would
> compare against SWISHED.

I have the same question. Apache is *very* stable, well supported and 
well known. If you used it as your base then all things like handling 
multiple clients, logging, etc are handled for you. Escpecially with the 
flexibility of Apache2 I see almost no reason to implement a network 
daemon. You'd just be playing catch-up.

Also in regards to your cluster manager, load balancing is a well known 
problem with existing solutions. If you were using apache as the 
backend, then it should be trivial to put an open source load balancer 
(LVS, etc) in front of it.

I'm not trying to knock the idea. I like the prospect of having a 
cluster handling the searching, indexing, etc. It's just that I've been 
developing mod_perl for a while and following mod_perl2/apache2 with a 
lot of interest. It's really exciting what you can do with 
apache2/mod_perl2 that is more than just dynamic web sites (protocol 
handlers, etc).

-- 
Michael Peters
Developer
Plus Three, LP