# Apache 2.2 / mod\_proxy\_balancer / mongrel - only proxy to no **URL:** \ **Category:** Deployment\ **Created:** [January 25, 2007, 5:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/apache-2-2-mod-proxy-balancer-mongrel-only-proxy-to-no/83375 "2007-01-25T17:16:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![giaco](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/a3d4f5/32.png) [@giaco](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/giaco)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 5:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/apache-2-2-mod-proxy-balancer-mongrel-only-proxy-to-no/83375/1 "2007-01-25T17:16:52Z")
Is there some way to only proxy to non-busy mongrel’s? I’m running 6 mongrels, and if 1 is busy 1 out of every 6 next requests will stall. The other 5 mongrels could easily handle them quickly. I know the standard answer for long running tasks is a separate worker process, and that makes sense for really big long running tasks, but for 10-20 second or so pages it seems a lot of extra work to split the logic into multiple pieces if there is an easy way to not send more requests to a busy mongrel. – Jack C. removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid ---
**Author:** ![giaco](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/a3d4f5/32.png) [@giaco](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/giaco)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 6:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/apache-2-2-mod-proxy-balancer-mongrel-only-proxy-to-no/83375/2 "2007-01-25T18:41:28Z")
On Jan 25, 5:16 pm, Jack C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Is there some way to only proxy to non-busy mongrel’s? I’m running 6 > mongrels, and if 1 is busy 1 out of every 6 next requests will stall. > The other 5 mongrels could easily handle them quickly. I know the > standard answer for long running tasks is a separate worker process, and > that makes sense for really big long running tasks, but for 10-20 second > or so pages it seems a lot of extra work to split the logic into > multiple pieces if there is an easy way to not send more requests to a > busy mongrel. Apache’s mod\_proxy module (and subsequently mod\_proxy\_balancer) backend monitoring is AFAIK limited to only being able to see if a proxy backend is down. It cannot monitor the load or “busy-ness” of the backend. I know HA-Proxy and a bunch of hardware balancers does this, I don’t think nginx, lighttpd and pound does though? (someone should make a list somewhere with this kinda stuff ;)) So, either switch proxying software, or fix/workaround the original issue. JS ---
**Author:** ![giaco](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/a3d4f5/32.png) [@giaco](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/giaco)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 9:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/apache-2-2-mod-proxy-balancer-mongrel-only-proxy-to-no/83375/3 "2007-01-25T21:06:00Z")
On Jan 25, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Johan Sørensen wrote: > > multiple pieces if there is an easy way to not send more requests > > think nginx, lighttpd and pound does though? > > (someone should make a list somewhere with this kinda stuff ;)) > > So, either switch proxying software, or fix/workaround the original > issue. > > JS Yeah Haproxy or any hardware load balancer can handle this. Apache, lighty and nginx don’t currently. But Igor, the author of nginx told me he will add a proxy-max-load directive so you coudl set it to 1 and that mongrel would not get another request until it returns from the first and the requests would queue in nginx instead of in mongrel. Probably a week or two before nginx has this built in. This will give ngixn a significant advantage over apache and lighty. Cheers- – Ezra Z. – Lead Rails Evangelist – removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid – Engine Y., Serious Rails Hosting – (866) 518-YARD (9273) ---
**Author:** ![giaco](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/a3d4f5/32.png) [@giaco](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/giaco)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 1:35am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/apache-2-2-mod-proxy-balancer-mongrel-only-proxy-to-no/83375/4 "2007-01-26T01:35:43Z")
On 1/25/07, Ezra Z. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > process, and > > > backend is down. It cannot monitor the load or “busy-ness” of the > > ``` > Yeah Haproxy or any hardware load balancer can handle this. Apache, > > ``` > > lighty and nginx don’t currently. But Igor, the author of nginx told > me he will add a proxy-max-load directive so you coudl set it to 1 > and that mongrel would not get another request until it returns from > the first and the requests would queue in nginx instead of in > mongrel. Probably a week or two before nginx has this built in. This > will give ngixn a significant advantage over apache and lighty. Litespeed also handles this internally. Joe ---
**Author:** ![giaco](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/a3d4f5/32.png) [@giaco](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/giaco)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 8:09am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/apache-2-2-mod-proxy-balancer-mongrel-only-proxy-to-no/83375/5 "2007-01-26T08:09:13Z")
On Jan 25, 10:04 pm, Ezra Z. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > ``` > Yeah Haproxy or any hardware load balancer can handle this. Apache, > > ``` > > lighty and nginx don’t currently. But Igor, the author of nginx told > me he will add a proxy-max-load directive so you coudl set it to 1 > and that mongrel would not get another request until it returns from > the first and the requests would queue in nginx instead of in > mongrel. Probably a week or two before nginx has this built in. This > will give ngixn a significant advantage over apache and lighty. That’s very cool, Ezra. Do you have any inside knowledge about how nginx will determine the load of a mongrel? Also, will it work to route around dead mongrels? //jarkko ---
**Author:** ![giaco](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/a3d4f5/32.png) [@giaco](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/giaco)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 7:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/apache-2-2-mod-proxy-balancer-mongrel-only-proxy-to-no/83375/6 "2007-01-26T19:02:19Z")
On Jan 25, 2007, at 11:08 PM, Jarkko L. wrote: > That’s very cool, Ezra. Do you have any inside knowledge about how > nginx will determine the load of a mongrel? Also, will it work to > route > around dead mongrels? > > //jarkko Here is a quote from Igor about this feature: "I plan to add someting like this: ``` upstream name { server host:9000 max_conn=5 max_wait=100 wait_time=60s; } ``` " So for mongrel you could set the max\_conn to 1. That would make sure no mongrel gets another request until it returns from whatever it’s doing. Cheers- – Ezra Z. – Lead Rails Evangelist – removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid – Engine Y., Serious Rails Hosting – (866) 518-YARD (9273) ---
**Author:** ![giaco](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/a3d4f5/32.png) [@giaco](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/giaco)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2007, 3:20pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/apache-2-2-mod-proxy-balancer-mongrel-only-proxy-to-no/83375/7 "2007-01-29T15:20:25Z")
Ezra Z. wrote: > ``` > On Jan 25, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Johan Sørensen wrote: > ``` > > > ``` > > On Jan 25, 5:16 pm, Jack C.[\](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)wrote: > > ``` > > > > > ``` > > > Is there some way to only proxy to non-busy > > > mongrel's? I'm running 6 > > > mongrels, and if 1 is busy 1 out of every 6 next requests will stall. > > > The other 5 mongrels could easily handle them quickly. I know the > > > standard answer for long running tasks is a separate worker > > > process, and > > > that makes sense for really big long running tasks, but for 10-20 > > > second > > > or so pages it seems a lot of extra work to split the logic into > > > multiple pieces if there is an easy way to not send more requests > > > to a > > > busy mongrel. > > > ``` > > > > ``` > > Apache's mod_proxy module (and subsequently > > mod_proxy_balancer) > > backend > > monitoring is AFAIK limited to only being able to see if a proxy > > backend is down. It cannot monitor the load or "busy-ness" of the > > backend. > > > > I know HA-Proxy and a bunch of hardware balancers does this, I don’t > > think nginx, lighttpd and pound does though? > > (someone should make a list somewhere with this kinda stuff ;)) > > > > So, either switch proxying software, or fix/workaround the original > > issue. > > > > JS > > ``` > > ``` > Yeah Haproxy or any hardware load balancer can handle this. Apache, > lighty and nginx don’t currently. But Igor, the author of nginx told > me he will add a proxy-max-load directive so you coudl set it to 1 > and that mongrel would not get another request until it returns from > the first and the requests would queue in nginx instead of in > mongrel. Probably a week or two before nginx has this built in. This > will give ngixn a significant advantage over apache and lighty. > ``` Thanks. That sounds ideal. I will definitely keep an eye open for this feature. > ``` > Cheers- > – Ezra Z. > – Lead Rails Evangelist > – [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > – Engine Y., Serious Rails Hosting > – (866) 518-YARD (9273) > ``` ``` -- Jack C.[removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) ``` --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Deploying Rails" group. To post to this group, send email to removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid To unsubscribe from this group, send email to removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-deployment?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---