I've putting together a server (single P4, 1GB RAM) and website solution that will be using plone and have some serious traffic (getting up to around 10,000 visits per day) and server-side "dynamicity". So caching and other strategies for optimizing speed will be needed. My question is, in your experience, how does Squid match up against Apache 1.3 + mod_proxy + mod_gzip in the areas of speed and robustness? We won't need much non-zope content but will need SSL. also, with squid, how do people get useful logs for analysis by awstats etc out of it? based on what I've looked at, the logs are not as detailed as those given by apache. tia. <--> george donnelly - http://www.zettai.net/ - "We Love Newbies" :) Zope Hosting - Dynamic Website Design - Search Engine Promotion Yahoo, AIM: zettainet - MSN: zettainet@hotmail.com - ICQ: 51907738
George -- Have you looked at Pound? I'm doing a high volume site and planning to use it as the front-end. It's very light weight & manages SSL by proxying. -dra On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, george donnelly wrote:
I've putting together a server (single P4, 1GB RAM) and website solution that will be using plone and have some serious traffic (getting up to around 10,000 visits per day) and server-side "dynamicity". So caching and other strategies for optimizing speed will be needed.
My question is, in your experience, how does Squid match up against Apache 1.3 + mod_proxy + mod_gzip in the areas of speed and robustness?
We won't need much non-zope content but will need SSL.
also, with squid, how do people get useful logs for analysis by awstats etc out of it? based on what I've looked at, the logs are not as detailed as those given by apache.
tia.
<--> george donnelly - http://www.zettai.net/ - "We Love Newbies" :) Zope Hosting - Dynamic Website Design - Search Engine Promotion Yahoo, AIM: zettainet - MSN: zettainet@hotmail.com - ICQ: 51907738
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Dennis Allison wrote (allison@sumeru.stanford.edu) on 6/8/03 11:26 AM]
Have you looked at Pound? I'm doing a high volume site and planning to use it as the front-end. It's very light weight & manages SSL by proxying.
briefly, yes. it looks excellent but i need to pass this project on to some Win techs who are not as well-versed in Unix so I'm looking primarily at Apache and Squid. <--> george donnelly - http://www.zettai.net/ - "We Love Newbies" :) Zope Hosting - Dynamic Website Design - Search Engine Promotion Yahoo, AIM: zettainet - MSN: zettainet@hotmail.com - ICQ: 51907738
On Saturday 07 June 2003 19:30, george donnelly wrote:
My question is, in your experience, how does Squid match up against Apache 1.3 + mod_proxy + mod_gzip in the areas of speed and robustness?
I am happy with squid so far. Ive never felt its speed or robustness lacking. Its SSL handling is a little less mature.... I have had some problems in the past, but havent been able determine whether the blame lies with openssl or squid. No problems big enough to drive me back to apache though.
also, with squid, how do people get useful logs for analysis by awstats etc out of it? based on what I've looked at, the logs are not as detailed as those given by apache.
The squid native log has extra fields relating to proxying that apache logs do not (for example, which back-end zope server handled the request, and why that one was chosen). I am using Analog which parses this log nicely, ignoring the fields that it doesnt know about. The squid native log is missing referrer and user agent information, but those fields are stored in seperate log files. Is there anything else you thought was missing? -- Toby Dickenson http://www.geminidataloggers.com/people/tdickenson
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 04:33:45PM +0100, Toby Dickenson wrote:
The squid native log is missing referrer and user agent information, but those fields are stored in seperate log files.
Squid can be compiled and configured to make those additional log files available. But I have yet to find a log analysis tool that can handle them. When I last checked, it was hard (maybe impossible in the general case) to correlate entries in the referer and user-agent logs against the main access log; even timestamps for the same access can differ slightly. -- Fred Yankowski fred@ontosys.com tel: +1.630.879.1312 OntoSys, Inc PGP keyID: 7B449345 fax: +1.630.879.1370 www.ontosys.com 38W242 Deerpath Rd, Batavia, IL 60510-9461, USA
[Toby Dickenson wrote (tdickenson@geminidataloggers.com) on 6/9/03 11:33 AM]
also, with squid, how do people get useful logs for analysis by awstats etc out of it? based on what I've looked at, the logs are not as detailed as those given by apache.
The squid native log has extra fields relating to proxying that apache logs do not (for example, which back-end zope server handled the request, and why that one was chosen). I am using Analog which parses this log nicely, ignoring the fields that it doesnt know about.
The squid native log is missing referrer and user agent information, but those fields are stored in seperate log files.
Is there anything else you thought was missing?
no that was about it, thanks to all who have answered my post. <--> george donnelly - http://www.zettai.net/ - "We Love Newbies" :) Zope Hosting - Dynamic Website Design - Search Engine Promotion Yahoo, AIM: zettainet - MSN: zettainet@hotmail.com - ICQ: 51907738
[george donnelly wrote (list@zettai.net) on 6/9/03 12:37 PM]
Is there anything else you thought was missing?
no that was about it, thanks to all who have answered my post.
getting back to my original question... Those who have experience with Apache, Squid and Pound, which do you get the best results from in terms of site responsiveness (speediness) and robustness? <--> george donnelly - http://www.zettai.net/ - "We Love Newbies" :) Zope Hosting - Dynamic Website Design - Search Engine Promotion Yahoo, AIM: zettainet - MSN: zettainet@hotmail.com - ICQ: 51907738
george donnelly wrote:
getting back to my original question...
Those who have experience with Apache, Squid and Pound, which do you get the best results from in terms of site responsiveness (speediness) and robustness?
- If you need/want caching, nothing can beat Squid... Squid turns a low-end-server into an enterprise-mainframe (regarding cached pages)...;) But aggressive caching is no fun at all, if your clients use IE. IE's automatic page reload is buggy, so it can happen, that your clients don't see a new page for half a year. - If you don't need/want server-side-caching, Pound is a wonderful tool to protect Zope from the nasty internet. Easy to install, security-audited and VERY, VERY robust. I use it a lot and haven't had any troubles with it. Small and beautiful. I love it... Sure, it has no caching features at all... - If you need flexibility, use Apache... Personally I don't like the idea of running a web-server (Apache) in front of another web-server (Zope). But Apache is something like Emacs for the WWW... it can serve you even coffee... Cheers, Maik
participants (5)
-
Dennis Allison -
Fred Yankowski -
george donnelly -
Maik Jablonski -
Toby Dickenson