Nginx health checks

Aleksandar Lazic al-nginx at
Wed Jun 11 02:15:12 MSD 2008

On Die 10.06.2008 18:02, Barry Abrahamson wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
>> If you really use only the reverse proxy feature then I think the
>> haproxy is the better choice due the follwoing aguments:
>> 1.)
>> search for
>> 2.) 1.5) Increasing the overall processing power
>> 3.) 3.1) Server monitoring
>> 4.) 3.4) Limiting the number of concurrent sessions on each server
> Thanks for pointing these out.  I was looking for #2 when I did my
> testing, but couldn't find it.  That may change my mind about
> performance.

I hope so.

>> Some of this features would be also very nice in nginx ;-)
> I am mostly interested in "3.) 3.1) Server monitoring" at this point.
> The first one is already supported, and although the last one, in
> theory, would be nice, since we use round robin for most of our load
> distribution and have enough backends, the law of averages says that
> the probability of one backend becoming overloaded while the others
> are under-utilized is relatively small.  The fair proxy balancer patch
> for nginx may deal with this theoretical problem better than counting
> concurrent connections anyway

The last one is the swiss army knife with maxconn minconn maxqueue ;-)
Yes the fair module looks nice.

>> What I don't know is do you use the fcgi backend or the http backend?
> Currently http, but may switch to fcgi at some point.

With which http server on the backend?

>> One of the coolest / best feature of nginx is that he deliver the
>> static content as fast a possible from he disc ;-))
>> What I don't understand why you don't use this feature, due the fact
>> that, as far as I understand, you deliver ALL the content thru the
>> application, also the static one.
> Most of our content is dynamic.  Static content is not served through
> the application.

Also not the css,js, images, movies, ...?!

> There are a few things I really like about nginx that I don't find in
> HAProxy --
> 1) SSL -- no need for stunnel or something else to do the SSL
> negotiation.  Our % of SSL traffic is relatively low, so for us it is
> not a bottleneck.  Maybe one day it will be...
> 2) It's ability to be used as a web server, which could allow us to
> standardize on a single software package.
> 3) Abundance of 3rd party modules which allow you to extend the
> capabilities of the software and also build a community.

Full Ack.

1+3 will be done in the future I hope ;-)

>> As you can see I haven't setuped a blog with wordpress.
> You should :)

Well, I don't know what I should write ;-)

> Thanks for the feedback, it is much appreciated!

Your welcome, and thanks to trust in nginx and bring it to #4 on
netcraft ;-)))))


More information about the nginx mailing list