On 9 apr 2008, at 12:07, Edi Weitz wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:57:12 +0200, Arjan Wekking arjan@streamtech.nl wrote:
We (Streamtech) are using it in some relatively large web applications
Like in Arthur's case, I'd be interested in why you decided to go with mod_lisp. Just curious... :)
Well, it's partially historical (we moved some parts of the application from UCW to hunchentoot, keeping the mod_lisp set up as it was) and to a certain degree because of performance (we've been doing an average 6 requests per second 24/7 on the main part of our application).
Keeping Apache in front of Lisp has turned out to be a very pleasant setup for both performance (we serve quite some static files as well) and run-time management (to configure HTTP processing details, dealing with name bases virtual hosting and moving apps around without any downtime). We know this works just as well when running behind mod_proxy (as Zach mentioned) so we're not really depending on mod_lisp for that.
So, to sum things up; we know mod_lisp is a very thin layer compared to just proxying HTTP requests and we've been thinking of taking it out on some occasions (the behaviour it displays when restarting a Lisp without restarting Apache has been an issue now and then) so if mod_lisp support was dropped we would eventually change to a mod_proxy set up when we want to upgrade Hunchentoot, I guess.
-Arjan Wekking, Streamtech bv