Consider the scenario of a front-end & a back-end linux servers. The back-end server contains static content (plain old files) that need to be presented to the internet. Does anyone know which will give better performance and/or be a lighter load on the front end server? And, is one case better than the other from a security standpoint?
Case 1: Back-end server using NFS to provide content. Front-end server simply mounts the NFS share to the local filesystem & apache treats the content as local.
Case 2: Back-end server using apache to provide its local content. Front-end server uses reverse proxy to get the content from the back-end web server.
My guess is that Case 1 will better performing under heavy client load conditions, but Case 2 will be better performing under light client load conditions. However, I have no good way to test this to see if I'm right. What does everyone think? From a security standpoint, I'm not sure there's a big difference (as long as the NFS share is mounted as read-only), but I would think that Case 2 might be a little better because the content is really not even on the front-end machine if it were comprimised.
Case 1: Back-end server using NFS to provide content. Front-end server simply mounts the NFS share to the local filesystem & apache treats the content as local.
Case 2: Back-end server using apache to provide its local content. Front-end server uses reverse proxy to get the content from the back-end web server.
My guess is that Case 1 will better performing under heavy client load conditions, but Case 2 will be better performing under light client load conditions. However, I have no good way to test this to see if I'm right. What does everyone think? From a security standpoint, I'm not sure there's a big difference (as long as the NFS share is mounted as read-only), but I would think that Case 2 might be a little better because the content is really not even on the front-end machine if it were comprimised.