Re: A heads up

the keepalive issues were discussed several times on the list, and you
actually have a fundamental error in your regard to tux - tux is not a web
server, it is a web accelerator. your backend server should be able to
return static content, exactly as tux, since there will be requests for
static content that tux will forward to the backend server, if the request
diviates enough from the format tux expects. This was also discussed on the
list.

Regards,
Alex.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miles Elam" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 10:18 PM
Subject: A heads up


> Something not covered in the manual (and not discussed yet on this list
> as far as I can see) is the effect of keep-alives on TUX.  Don't get me
> wrong, TUX handles them beautifully;  However, I found myself debugging
> a seemingly impossible bug -- the page would always come up, but the
> images/stylesheets would be intermittently missing.
>
> I found that once TUX passes the socket, it has no more interaction with
> the socket from that moment on.  This means that if Apache or some other
> web server keeps the connection open for the second request, third
> request, etc., TUX will have nothing to do with it even if it's a static
> file with the appropriate permissions.
>
> I came across this because my back-end server did not handle static
> content at all (I was relying on TUX for this).  TUX would get the page
> request, not see the static file because the page is dynamic, Apache
> would handle the request, leave the connection open, get the second
> request from the browser, not find a handler for that URL, return a 404,
> and close the connection.  The browser would open a connection again for
> the third request and get TUX again, this time serving the static content.
>
> The effect of course is that the page would come up with no stylesheet,
> but all of the images would load.  Since expiry was set for some
> content, a reload would alternate the missing item.
>
> ---
>
> I'm sending this email as a cautionary tale for others so that they
> don't waste time in frustration.  In situations like this, disabling
> keep-alives on the dynamic server will solve the problem.
> Unfortunately, this requires the tear-down/rebuild step for a new socket
> on every page request, but c'est la vie.
>
> The only real solution that I can see would be to add support to TUX for
> watching the socket after it has passed it to userland -- in other
> words, make it more like a full proxy instead of a simple relay race.
>
> If anyone has any ideas on this, I'd love to hear them.  Unfortunately
> this is a programming task beyond my current abilities to fix -- I can
> fix simple kernel bugs, but I don't add significantly new functionality.
>
> - Miles
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tux-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/tux-list
>