On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:03:57 +0200, Ragnar Beer <rbeer@uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
Apache -> Squid -> Zope
I never thought of having Squid between Apache and Zope but it sounds very interesting. What's the advantage over mod_proxy?
Squid's caching implementation seems to be more sophisticated; both in terms of its handling of the HTTP caching headers, and the number of things to tweak in squid.conf. If caching is crucial to your site then I think Squid has a higher hit-rate ceiling, if you are willing to invest some time in handling HTTP caching headers in your Zope application. However, I never really because proficient with mod_proxy's caching. It was difficult to understand why certain requests were cached, and others not, and difficult to obtain performance measures direct from the cache. In contrast Squid can write detailed logs, and provides alot of detailed information through a web-based management interface. Squid makes the whole system more debuggable. Another reasonable question is why I use both Squid and Apache, rather than just Squid...... I find Apache good for virtual hosting, and using mod_rewrite to glue various back-end resources into a single URL namespace. Toby Dickenson tdickenson@geminidataloggers.com