Re: Tux + Apache
From: Javier Gostling (jgd_at_samwan.homeip.net)
To: email@example.com Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:24:21 -0400
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 01:11:48PM -0500, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
> > Can I get some feedback on the use of Tux and Apache working together.
> I am
> > looking to replace my company's intranet, currently using
> > with a RH 9 system. If I could get some feedback from tux+apache users
> > would help me decide on using tux+apache.
> Tux and Apache are both web servers. Why would you want to run both?
Tux is a web content accelerator. It's purpose is not to provide a full
blown web server but to serve static content VERY fast (though lately it's
aquired the ability to serve dynamic content). Apache on the other hand
is a full blown web server. Tux is supposed to run in front of a web server
to deliver static content quickly and pass other requests to the backend
> Tux was an experiment in increasing the speed of web servers by
> incorporating the server code in the kernel. Many of the speed
> improvements that were created by the project have been incorporated
> into Apache.
Hardly. Most (if not all) speed improvements came from having direct access
to some kernel structures and buffers. Apache is utterly unable to do this.
Setup a machine with both and do some benchmarks and you'll see for yourself.
> Personally, I would never run Tux. I believe that it is too great a
> security risk. Not because it has any more holes than any other piece
> of software, but because if it is compromised, the attacker has full and
> total authority on your machine.
I have been running Tux for over a year to accelerate the delivery of
images for a website. Since it's a site with an awful lot of images
(over 2Gb of images on the site) fast image delivery was a must. I agree
that in a security breach situation Tux is more dangerous than Apache or
other web servers, but so far staying current with redhat's errata has been
enough (servers are still behind a firewall) to prevent any compromise.
> Stick with Apache. It's quite fast enough, and *much* safer.
This will depend on your specific site and situation. If you have funds to
buy more servers, then you can just add more apache nodes to a cluster to
keep up with content demand. If you don't have the funds, you had better
go looking for all performance enhancements you can or risk degraded
-- Javier Gostling D. <firstname.lastname@example.org> -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list