Network Appliances NetCache vs. Squid
My host has offered me to try accelerating a busy zope-based site using a Network Appliances NetCache. He kept the device from a customer which went bankrupt. Neither of us has any experience with the device. If anybody can share some insights in regard to Zope and how this compares in use something like Squid as a reverse proxy, I'd be most thankful. On that note, what are the issues of running squid on the same machine as the Zope instance to be cached? Are substantial gains only achieved if Squid sits on its own box? Cheers Marc
--On Montag, 28. April 2003 11:57 Uhr +0100 Marc Burgauer <marc@sharedbase.com> wrote:
Neither of us has any experience with the device. If anybody can share some insights in regard to Zope and how this compares in use something like Squid as a reverse proxy, I'd be most thankful.
Squid + Zope is used on several large production sites and my experiences are very good. Although you need to have some knowledge because Squid has a lot of configuration options and it takes some time to get Squid tuned in the right way.
On that note, what are the issues of running squid on the same machine as the Zope instance to be cached? Are substantial gains only achieved if Squid sits on its own box?
Depends on the load and the hardware of the machine. In general it is possible. For a site with lot of traffic I would a dedicated Squid machine. At least put the Squid cache and the Zope instance on different disks to spread IO. -aj
Thank you, Andreas!
Squid + Zope is used on several large production sites and my experiences are very good. Although you need to have some knowledge because Squid has a lot of configuration options and it takes some time to get Squid tuned in the right way.
I know that it is a popular way of acceleration. One of the things I just noticed is that a problem is maybe coming from the fact, that on my machine a single python process has to deal with all the requests. Is there an easy way to give a site multiple processes to server the same site? The machine has certainly spare capacity. (I started another site on the same box and it's fast.) Is this where I need ZEO or can this be configured for a single instance of Zope? Also, where can I find some good documentation on how to run Squid for Zope and how to tune it? There are loads of references on zope.org, which one's helped you?
Depends on the load and the hardware of the machine. In general it is possible. For a site with lot of traffic I would a dedicated Squid machine. At least put the Squid cache and the Zope instance on different disks to spread IO.
The load on the machine is not the problem at this stage. I have a good RAID and IO seems not to be the bottleneck. Cheers Marc
On Monday 28 April 2003 2:19 pm, Marc Burgauer wrote:
I know that it is a popular way of acceleration. One of the things I just noticed is that a problem is maybe coming from the fact, that on my machine a single python process has to deal with all the requests.
A single process, but multiple threads. What problem are you seeing?
Is there an easy way to give a site multiple processes to server the same site?
Use ZEO, and just start two Zope processes. Squid can distribute load between them using ICP. http://www.zope.org/Members/htrd/icp/intro -- Toby Dickenson http://www.geminidataloggers.com/people/tdickenson
Why do you really need to accelerate the site? If you have a highly dynamic site, no acceleration appliances will work. There may be a few things you can do on your end first to see if there is something easy to do to your instance of Zope. Have you run profiling to see what is the bottleneck? Are there some expensive scripts that may need some reworking for better performance? Profiling can help with that. Do you efficiently use Zope's caching mechanisms like caching templates and images in ram, or increasing the size of the ZODB cache? What OS is running Zope? Could you proxy Apache in front of Zope on the same machine using mod_cache to speed up images etc.? Could you build a simple 1u Linux box with ZEO and Squid on it as the accelerator for less than a netappliance? I would look into those things(if you haven't already) before worrying about a caching/accelerator. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Burgauer" <marc@sharedbase.com> To: <zope@zope.org> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 3:57 AM Subject: [Zope] Network Appliances NetCache vs. Squid
My host has offered me to try accelerating a busy zope-based site using a Network Appliances NetCache. He kept the device from a customer which went bankrupt.
Neither of us has any experience with the device. If anybody can share some insights in regard to Zope and how this compares in use something like Squid as a reverse proxy, I'd be most thankful.
On that note, what are the issues of running squid on the same machine as the Zope instance to be cached? Are substantial gains only achieved if Squid sits on its own box?
Cheers
Marc
_______________________________________________ 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 )
participants (4)
-
Andreas Jung -
Marc Burgauer -
Scott Burton -
Toby Dickenson