I think the best way to sum up Squid's configuration is: the problem is not that you need to understand all the configuration options in squid.conf, but you need to understand what to ignore... ;) The same, to some extent, is possibly true of Apache. My thoughts on trying to dive into Squid setup: -> Compile Squid from source, with enough of a file-descriptor ceiling (ulimit & hacking Makefile(s)) that you are not shooting yourself come high traffic time. Use --disable-internal-dns if you want to use /etc/hosts (note, this may have changed somewhere in 2.5PRE+). -> Run squid with ulimit set to give you enough file descriptors. -> Ignore anything/everything related to cache peering in squid.conf if you don't know you need it. -> Ignore this suggestion if you want to use ICP in Zope 2.6 (then read Toby's howto) -> Set the port you want to serve on (80) -> Use a redirector (http://freshmeat.net/projects/pyredir), set this part up in squid.conf -> Set up to 5-6 necessary items in the accel section -> Make sure your acls are set up to allow what you need. -> If you want ssl support, the setup (Squid 2.5) is really no more difficult than apache, with a few gotchas (way URLs are treated internally in Squid data structures is as http://foo not https://foo, so redirtors and ACLs can be confusing). If you try enough to (as much as possible) ignore the other stuff in squid.conf, you are likely okay. Sean -----Original Message----- From: Andreas Jung [mailto:lists@andreas-jung.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 10:32 PM To: Ausum Studio; zope@zope.org Subject: Re: [Zope] Apache-Squid-Zope, Squid-Apache-Zope.. or just Squid-Zope? To make it short: - use Apache+Zope if you have a smaller website and you don't like to hurt your brain about the 1000 configuration options of Squid. - use Squid-Zope if you have a high volume website and have some experiences with Squid. Apache offers less related configuration options than you have fingers at your hand. Squid has more than a hundred. -> Apache+Zope=easy to use, easy to setup -> Squid+Zope=requires more work and you should know what you're doing. -aj --On Dienstag, 5. November 2002 01:24 -0500 Ausum Studio <ausum_studio@hotmail.com> wrote:

I know this has been treated before, but as much as I can see, people use the three ways with apparent success. Within the context that ZC is funding Squid to implement ESI, would any member of the community try a theoretical resume (not a how-to) of the issues regarding using Squid to cache Zope? Which one of the three combinations is the best?

Ausum

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jo Meder" <jo@meder.de>

...

(...) We're using Apache in front of Squid in front of Zope to implement virtual hosts and caching wherever possible btw.

Jo.

_______________________________________________ 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 )

--------------------------------------------------------------------- - Andreas Jung http://www.andreas-jung.com - - EMail: andreas at andreas-jung.com - - "Life is too short to (re)write parsers" - --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 )