Re: Server accelerator options: Squid, apache's built-in web caching or hardware "solutions"
- From: "C." <colin.mckinnon@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 04:09:59 -0800 (PST)
On 12 Jan, 10:42, lbrt...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
~
I have read about Squid as surrogate server, but apache's httpd
itself has built-in web caching features
~
Would you share with me your experience, if you have tried both
scenarios specially when employing virtual hosts and aliases?
~
hmmm, sounds like "please write my class assignment for me".
It all rather depends on how hard your systems from webserver through
to data are working. If you're just serving up static content then
there's not likely to be much benefit to be had. Regardless, it's not
the the place to start when looking at overall HTTP performance.
Assuming you have exhausted optimisation at other levels within your
stack (including at the browser and remote caches) then a reverse
proxy may be of benefit, particularly if you've got a lot of
dynamically generated content (provided of course it suitable for
caching and is returning the appropriate caching information).
To me (and everyone else I guess ;-)) bandwidth is the critical
factor on a server. How important would be serving a page right off
the cache when it still has to go its merry way on a slow connection?
The less time a server has to maintain a socket open and content in
memory, then the faster it will go - I was surprised how much faster
my (un-proxied) boxes went after enabling gzip compression (long time
ago). It also frees up a lot of processor time. But, unless you do
some clever stuff with a content sensitive load balancer, you might be
better expanding the webserver layer instead of inserting a proxy
layer which will add an additional hop to each request. I'd expect
handling a request for static content with squid to be slightly less
onerous than with Apache (same for cached content on either) - but I'd
expect the difference on overall system performance to be trivial.
Relating to this issue, something that isn't still clear to me; does
squid serve the static gzipped content returned by the server, which
much browsers can handle?
~
No idea - but certainly squid does respond with the correct encoding
type - so the worst thing to happen is that you double the number of
requests at the webserver layer for such content (which, if you've got
your caching set up correctly, will mean the URL might get fetched
e.g. twice a day instead of once).
As I said earlier - fix everything else first. Then try adding a proxy
and see what happens.
C.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Moving a web site: am I doing this right?
- Next by Date: Re: Server accelerator options: Squid, apache's built-in web caching or hardware "solutions"
- Previous by thread: Moving a web site: am I doing this right?
- Next by thread: Re: Server accelerator options: Squid, apache's built-in web caching or hardware "solutions"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
