not sure if thats what you want, but squid _can_ act as a frontend to multiple backend-servers. check out the squid users guide (http://squid-docs.sourceforge.net/latest/html/book1.htm) specifically http://squid-docs.sourceforge.net/latest/html/x2544.htm which deals with "accelerator" options peter. On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 sean.upton@uniontrib.com wrote: :Hmm. That's been my thought on squid as well, given its ground-up design :for caching in the first place. My worry, though, is that with squid I lose :support for virtual hosts on seperate boxes, because I need to support Zope, :static content, and some legacy stuff running ColdFusion on an NT box. My :impression is that Squid's http accelerator mode (inverse transparent proxy, :or whatever you want to call it) is somewhat of an afterthought compared to :the standard proxy use case. If it supports the ability to direct traffic :based upon the virtual host address, then squid works - if not, I think I :have to go the Apache route... I also wonder just how good Apache's :mod_proxy caching is? Any thoughts? : :Sean : :-----Original Message----- :From: Shane Hathaway [mailto:shane@digicool.com] :Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 12:59 PM :To: zope@zope.org :Subject: Re: [Zope] Caching/http-acceleration and proxying Zope-served :content : : :sean.upton@uniontrib.com wrote: :> :> I have a question, for anyone experienced in working with Zope and caching :> proxies: :> :> I'm setting up a load-balanced server farm that has nodes that will run :> Apache and proxy (via mod_proxy) to ZEO clients running ZServer. This :farm :> is routed (both ways) through a layer 4 load-balancing appliance, and all :> these boxes (both nodes and the balancer) are sitting inside a DMZ with :> private IP addresses. The public world will access these servers via a :> firewall box running transparent proxy (actually, I guess, similar to :> squid's http_accel mode; the semantics here are a bit tricky, as it's more :> of a inverse trans-proxy). Between Apache and Zope, there would be :several :> virtual hosts, and I'd be using the SiteAccess product. It gets a bit :> tricky in that I need to access several different virtual hosts inside the :> DMZ (one for the ZEO farm, and another for a dedicated CGI-based ad server :> on another box) via the proxy. A more detailed (ascii art) diagram of :what :> I am trying to do, is at http://209.132.8.98/server_ascii_art.txt :> :> My question is this: does anybody have any thoughts on the merits of Squid :> (http accelerator mode) versus Apache/mod_proxy in terms of caching, :virtual :> hosts, and the like when working with Zope sites? Any big pitfalls to :this :> kind of setup with Zope sites? : :I would prefer Squid since its only purpose in life is caching. It :follows the "do one thing and do it well" mantra. : :But whatever your choice, I hope you make use of the new CacheManagement :feature in Zope 2.3. It is designed to make things like this :straightforward and easy. There's a recent news announcement that links :to everything you need--including complete help docs! : :Shane : :_______________________________________________ :Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org :http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope :** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** :(Related lists - : http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce : http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) : :_______________________________________________ :Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org :http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope :** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** :(Related lists - : http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce : http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) : -- _________________________________________________ peter sabaini, mailto: sabaini@niil.at -------------------------------------------------