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
