Dear All,

I have a client that has this kind of set up:

The OS is Redhat, now changed to CentOS. In a physical server, compiled and installed a Front-end Apache server and multiple copies of Back-end Apache server.

Basically the front-end will still use port 80 while the back-end will be using various ports that any incoming request will reach the Front-end apache then proxy-pass to back-end apache.

The question is:

- Is this the most practical way to have separate the Apache to front-end and back-end?

- All apache has to be compiled as certain requirements required for different copies of the
apache, thus, it is very hard to maintain, is this advisable?

- If saying as one apache down, will not affect the others, or making changes to one apache,
won't affect the others, is this a good way of maintaining multiple copies of apache?

- If in Debian environment, can i achieve this by running just 1 copy of apache and keep it
updated using apt-get?

* I would like to recommend to change the OS from Redhat/CentOS to Debian for easier maintenance, will anyone shed a light on this? (Based on the existing requirement and configuration.

Thank you!

regards,
GS

CentOS/Redhat is the best for a productive system, doesnt matter what you do, also, its the same updateing the system: yum update or up2date -i. So apt-get doesnt really have a reason to switch from CentOS/Redhat to Debian. Also you will have from time to time issue with the apt-get, I have running Debian, and I wouldnt recommend this to a serious productive system.

When it comes to apache, I dont have idea why your client need it how it does.. you could try using frond-end nginx and back-end apache or something similar.

Or maybe not

Hi,

Thanks for your reply.

Besides some big brands (IBM/HP/Dell) has certified their hardware well tested and compatible with RH 4/5, i really don't get the point of being the best for production system. It's the same with a lot of sites using FreeBSD on the 'now consider low-end' HP/Compaq server but still running great.

I'm not denying your point, it's just that, there must be a reason why Debian would be in the market for such a long time. Maybe it doesn't follow the trend, doesn't have a HCL or something?

Just plainly my point. If you would like to show some example of the comparison of the two, i'm interested to hear your story though

Back to Apache case, what is nginx anyway?

Thanks!!

Hey, I understand you too, but I am actually working in IBM and working with Redhat/Suse and if in case we would lets say go to "debian" we would be in deep shit when it comes to a lot of stuff. I know the debian is been around from the beginning but that doesnt also mean is ready for production. For a small server debian works I suppose, like I said I am using it too.

When it come to nginx (http://www.nginx.net) is a lightweight web server and mail server. I am using it as a web server on www.visualserver.org and I can say its fast, but I mean fast, low CPU usage and memory. I am using it with FastCGI (PHP). In my opinion this or lighttpd is the best way to go for a web server.

Also when it comes to debian, they have almost every release late and usually "test" or "unstable" version.

Anyway, you want something serios, go for CentOS, its free, enterprise idea for everything, structure, packages and so on. Also it comes with the most stables packages out there, which is very important, thats the difference between Debian and CentOS/Redhat.

Suse, well just dont go for it, I hate this distro, its more trouble then Windows.

Good luck!