Why use haproxy now ?

[Larry]

Did anyone had problems with upstream modules ?

There is backup servers, least_conn and other fancy things. Isn't it as
efficient as Haproxy (open question)?

I read carefully, maybe not enough, what you all said, but, just cannot
understand how it comes nginx cannot perform as well as haproxy to serve lot
of connections.

Tcp splicing is not really useable for everyone running on stable debian 6.


Here is my scenario : I just nginx for just everyhting I have to deal with.
If I don't want php, is use lua for simple things or tough rewriting.

I use nginx as a routing engine on another server. And still use it to serve
static files on my private cdn. It doesn't do round robin but least_conn to
share the load evenly. My sessions are accessed by a database backend with
memcached activated.

This setup is soooooo simple and easy to maintain !

So far so good, really easy to setup, scripts know where to search/replace.
But i don't want to miss anything. 

As for varnish : if you are on a static html page, then it is your browser
cache that relays you. If it is semi static, chances are that you don't
reuse the same part several times among different users due to
personalization. And if you can split this sub part to serve something
general enough, then the time that it calls varnish to serve it, nginx alone
would have already done half the way to serve the file.

If in this scenario Haproxy performs significantly better, then I am in
thirst of knowledge.

Cheers, 

Larry

Posted at Nginx Forum: http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,237874,237900#msg-237900