[erlang-questions] Re: Port forwarding / managed web

Jayson Vantuyl kagato@REDACTED
Mon Dec 7 18:47:16 CET 2009

If your concern is performance, Matt is right.  Apache can take a lot of parallelism out of the process to Erlang's detriment.  Nginx, not so much, but it's still not necessary (although it's great for serving static assets along with proxying to Erlang).

That said, for 99% of installations, I think Apache will hold up.

Of course, ask a general question, get a general answer...

On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Max Lapshin <max.lapshin@REDACTED> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> Use a "real" webserver to accept the requests on port 80/443, do whatever
>>> request decoding is required, and then use the internal proxy modules
>>> (mod_proxy on Apache, HttpProxyModule for nginx) to pass the requests back
>>> to the applications as required.
>> It is very, very bad idea to hide erlang after Apache. Even the
>> smallest and the worst web server on erlang
>> will be much more superiour than Apache.
> If this statement isn't flame bait, it's at least very odd.
> I'd discourage anyone from worrying about reverse proxy functions in
> Erlang until you bump into a problem that purpose built servers like
> Nginx or (the venerable) Apache+mod_proxy can't cope with. And even
> then, don't :)
> Garrett
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org

Jayson Vantuyl

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list