John Oliver wrote:
I'm looking for info about Apache and possible alternatives... the
serving in question is lots and lots of small files (components of
Flash-driven banner ads... don't shoot me!) I'm used to Apache, but
am willing to consider lightweight alternatives.
Apache is great. Keep using it to power your back-end. Then look at
putting squid in front of it. Configure your web application to set the
appropriate cache headers for the various pages and pieces of content.
Focus obsessively on reducing database hits if your site is database
driven. Pre-generate and cache as much as possible.
What other possibilities are out there? Zeus, Tomcat, litehttpd or
httpdlite...
Apache and squid. None of that other stuff will really help unless you
need a web application server platform on the backend to develop your
actual web applications which is what something like Tomcat is.
I just set up a system with Plone behind Squid. Plone has something
called CacheFu and it is really cool. It knows what pieces of content
are static, what pieces are dynamic and sets the cache headers
appropriately to get the various things cached in the browser or in
squid or not cached at all. But it caches nearly everything in at least
the squid layer and then when dynamic pieces of content change it sends
an ICP message to squid telling it to refresh that piece of content in
the cache. Pretty darn slick and improves performance significantly over
just Plone+Squid. You can scale by just adding more squid caches. I
still use Apache to serve static content such as mailing list archives
and various other peoples Apache based static websites. So I have Squid
in front running a URL rewrite script which causes Squid to pull the
content from either Apache or Squid as appropriate depending on the url.
--
Tracy R Reed http://ultraviolet.org
A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right
Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
