DeWitt Clinton wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Hi, I am switching my modperl site to squid in httpd acclerator mode
> > and everything works as advertised, but was very surprised to find
> > squid 10x slower than apache on a cached 6k gif as measured by
> > apache bench... 100 requests/second vs almost 1000 for apache.
>
> I've experienced the same results with accelerating small static files.
> However, we still use squid on our site (www.eziba.com) because our httpd
> processes are so heavy, and to save a trip to the database for documents
> that are cachable, such as product images. We've found that the net
> performance gain to be noticeable. However, if all you are serving is
> static files that live on the same tier as the apache server, you'll
> probably be better of without squid.
>
> On that topic, is there an alternative to squid? We are using it
> exclusively as an accelerator, and don't need 90% of it's admittedly
> impressive functionality. Is there anything designed exclusively for this
> purpose? Perhaps a modperl module that implements caching of files based
> on Expires headers?
How about mod_backhand? http://www.backhand.org/. It is capable of not
only buffering, but also load balancing and failover.
If all you want is buffering, it would be very easy to write a small
program that accepted http requests and forwarded them to another
daemon, then buffered the response. Perhaps this would be a good
weekend project for one of us.
I've been tinkering with the idea of writing an httpd. As much as I
like Apache, there are many things I don't like about it, and a ton of
functionality that I won't ever need. All I really want is a web server
that:
1) Is multithreaded or otherwise highly parallel.
2) Has a request stage interface like Apache's
3) Uses async I/O
Number 3 would releive us of this squid hack that we are all using.
That doesn't seem too hard. I think I will write it. I'll need someone
to hook in the Perl interpreter, though :)
-jwb
