Re: [Zope3-Users] Squid/Apache Caching

2006-02-17 Thread Chris Withers

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

2006-02-16 Thread Andrew Sawyers
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

2006-02-15 Thread Chris Withers

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

2006-02-14 Thread Chris Withers

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

2006-02-14 Thread Peter Bengtsson
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

2006-02-14 Thread Chris Cogdon


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

2006-02-13 Thread Stephan Richter
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