Re: [Zope3-Users] Squid/Apache Caching
Andrew Sawyers wrote: If you have needs for Apache, use Apache - but there is no need for it just for rewriting urls. Agreed, Jens can fill you in on the rest of the details as to why we use Apache ;-) cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] Squid/Apache Caching
If you have needs for Apache, use Apache - but there is no need for it just for rewriting urls. There are plenty of ways to rewrite in Squid - and you can always write your own. See http://www.squid-cache.org/related-software.html for a list of redirectors that are available out there. Having used Squid heavily over the years, there is no need for added complexity of adding Apache in the mix unless there is something specifically you need from it. >From your description, Apache is YAGNI. Andrew Sawyers On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:44 +, Peter Bengtsson wrote: > On 2/14/06, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steve Wedig wrote: > > > I'm in the planning stages for developing a Zope 3 application. It > > > would be nice to know my http caching plan ahead of time. It seems > > > that the two main options are squid and apache. I was wondering if the > > > most flexible setup might be to have apache running behind squid, and > > > zope behind apache. > > > > My personal preference is apache -> squid -> zope > > > > But that's 'cos I like Apache's rewriting and have more faith in it as a > > front-end proxy for sanitizing requests and the like... > > > That's very interesting. If you understood Squid better do you think > you'd leave out apache? Or perhaps that not the issue at all for you. > I'm asking because in my company we've lots of apache experience but > less so in squid. It's therefore a potential security risk to leave > out apache. > > And what about the performance overhead? Any experience you can share? > > > cheers, > > > > Chris > > > > -- > > Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting > > - http://www.simplistix.co.uk > > > > ___ > > Zope3-users mailing list > > Zope3-users@zope.org > > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users > > > > > -- > Peter Bengtsson, > work www.fry-it.com > home www.peterbe.com > hobby www.issuetrackerproduct.com > ___ > Zope3-users mailing list > Zope3-users@zope.org > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] Squid/Apache Caching
Peter Bengtsson wrote: That's very interesting. If you understood Squid better do you think you'd leave out apache? Maybe, I guess I just have a soft spot for Apache though ;-) And what about the performance overhead? Any experience you can share? Nope, Plone gives me all the performance overhead I need... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] Squid/Apache Caching
On Feb 14, 2006, at 15:44, Peter Bengtsson wrote:
On 2/14/06, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steve Wedig wrote:
I'm in the planning stages for developing a Zope 3 application. It
would be nice to know my http caching plan ahead of time. It seems
that the two main options are squid and apache. I was wondering if
the
most flexible setup might be to have apache running behind squid, and
zope behind apache.
My personal preference is apache -> squid -> zope
But that's 'cos I like Apache's rewriting and have more faith in it
as a
front-end proxy for sanitizing requests and the like...
That's very interesting. If you understood Squid better do you think
you'd leave out apache? Or perhaps that not the issue at all for you.
I'm asking because in my company we've lots of apache experience but
less so in squid. It's therefore a potential security risk to leave
out apache.
And what about the performance overhead? Any experience you can share?
In my experience (and I use both Apache and Squid HEAVILY) Apache's
rewrite abilities are nothing short of amazing. Squids caching ability
is nothing short of amazing. The ability of one to do the other's job
is "mediocre" :) If "mediocre" is good enough for your application for
that particular component, then... by all means use it :)
--
("`-/")_.-'"``-._Chris Cogdon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
. . `; -._)-;-,_`)
(v_,)' _ )`-.\ ``-'
_.- _..-_/ / ((.'
((,.-' ((,/ fL
___
Zope3-users mailing list
Zope3-users@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] Squid/Apache Caching
On 2/14/06, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve Wedig wrote: > > I'm in the planning stages for developing a Zope 3 application. It > > would be nice to know my http caching plan ahead of time. It seems > > that the two main options are squid and apache. I was wondering if the > > most flexible setup might be to have apache running behind squid, and > > zope behind apache. > > My personal preference is apache -> squid -> zope > > But that's 'cos I like Apache's rewriting and have more faith in it as a > front-end proxy for sanitizing requests and the like... > That's very interesting. If you understood Squid better do you think you'd leave out apache? Or perhaps that not the issue at all for you. I'm asking because in my company we've lots of apache experience but less so in squid. It's therefore a potential security risk to leave out apache. And what about the performance overhead? Any experience you can share? > cheers, > > Chris > > -- > Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting > - http://www.simplistix.co.uk > > ___ > Zope3-users mailing list > Zope3-users@zope.org > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users > -- Peter Bengtsson, work www.fry-it.com home www.peterbe.com hobby www.issuetrackerproduct.com ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] Squid/Apache Caching
Steve Wedig wrote: I'm in the planning stages for developing a Zope 3 application. It would be nice to know my http caching plan ahead of time. It seems that the two main options are squid and apache. I was wondering if the most flexible setup might be to have apache running behind squid, and zope behind apache. My personal preference is apache -> squid -> zope But that's 'cos I like Apache's rewriting and have more faith in it as a front-end proxy for sanitizing requests and the like... cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] Squid/Apache Caching
On Saturday 11 February 2006 18:17, Steve Wedig wrote: > Or should I just pick one option, either Apache or Squid? I think people use both. But since this is not necessarily a pure Zope 3 question, you might ask this question at zope@zope.org as well. I know there is a *lot* of experience with this sort of thing in Zope 2. The answers you get there should be pretty much applicable for Zope 3 as well, as long as they do not involve Zope 2 packages/products. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
