mod_mono
ApacheでASP.NETをホストするときに使う「mod_mono」って、結局xspにリバースプロキシしてるのかな。
公式見てもそれらしい記述が見つからないんだけど、「mod_mono」使う場合と「mod_proxyで内側で動いてるxspに対してプロキシかます」のはどっちが優位性がありますか、みたいな比較が書いてあったので。
mod_mono and mod_proxy
What are the advantages/disadvantages of using mod_mono with apache versus setting up apache with mod_proxy to proxy an XSP server running on a private port?
The use of mod_proxy is a common practice in the Java world with Tomcat/application serves, what is the reason not to use the same setup with XSP?
The mod_proxy approach is not recommended for Mono for the following reasons:
mod_mono:
- mod_mono performs better (it uses Unix domain sockets to communicate with the Mono server. The response headers doesn't need to be parsed/rewritten.
- faster file transfers
- common URL namespace with Apache (if AddHandler is used)
- autohosting: AutoHosting
- enabled for mass hosting
- xsp is only an HTTP 1.0 server, with a few HTTP 1.1 extensions, but not all of them. By using mod_mono your client - software is exposed to a full HTTP 1.1 implmenentation.
mod_proxy + mod_proxy_http:
- ability to run the app server under a different UID (mod_mono is supposed to support this too)
- the app server process cannot be controlled by Apache
- difficult mass hosting
