[Zope] Apache-Squid-Zope, Squid-Apache-Zope.. or just Squid-Z ope?

[sean.upton@uniontrib.com]

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 )