RE: [Zope] Caching/http-acceleration and proxying Zope-served con tent
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 )
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 -------------------------------------------------
I started using mod_proxy, because I needed the configuration options (redirection etc.) and squid wouldn't cache ssl stuff. It's running very well since about six months now. The downside is that it's really badly documented. BTW there is a new book by Ralf Engelschall that you can download for free from http://www.apacheref.com that also covers mod_proxy. Not in detail though. He calls mod_proxy apache's stepchild. Concerning numbers I gave some in my caching with mod_proxy howto (http://www.zope.org/Members/rbeer/caching). Ragnar
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 )
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:34:20 -0800, sean.upton@uniontrib.com wrote:
If it supports the ability to direct traffic based upon the virtual host address, then squid works
Yes, squid can do this using a redirector; an external program to rewrite urls. Toby Dickenson tdickenson@geminidataloggers.com
participants (4)
-
Peter Sabaini -
Ragnar Beer -
sean.upton＠uniontrib.com -
Toby Dickenson