The only time you will see a performance increase from nginx as a reverse proxy is when you need features that apache does badly like keep alive.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Cliff Wells <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cliff@develix.com">cliff@develix.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 12:33 +0800, yung wrote:<br>
<br>
> After testing for some times (have been changing the arugments for<br>
> http_load), I found nginx with reverse-proxy is not better than the<br>
> realserver.<br>
> Even the result is worse for accessing nginx than access apache directly.<br>
<br>
> So how do you think about it?<br>
> Suggestions are welcome. Thanks.<br>
><br>
<br>
If you use a Ferrari to tow a dump truck, you will find that the dump<br>
truck actually goes slightly faster on its own.<br>
In short, there are so many bottlenecks in your test setup (Apache, CGI,<br>
database) that the speed differences you see are probably not even<br>
statistically significant.<br>
<br>
Further, it's not clear at all why you think adding additional layers of<br>
processing (a proxy) to your stack would somehow magically speed things<br>
up. *Of course* it will be slower. How could you ever expect<br>
anything different? The typical use-case of Nginx in front of Apache<br>
is to allow Nginx to serve static resources to take the load away from<br>
Apache. You could also use some of Nginx' caching features to take<br>
load off Apache. You did none of these things. I think you need to<br>
think harder about what you are testing.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Cliff<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
nginx mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:nginx@nginx.org">nginx@nginx.org</a><br>
<a href="http://nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx" target="_blank">http://nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>