Hmm.  That's been my thought on squid as well, given its ground-up design
for caching in the first place.  My worry, though, is that with squid I lose
support for virtual hosts on seperate boxes, because I need to support Zope,
static content, and some legacy stuff running ColdFusion on an NT box.  My
impression is that Squid's http accelerator mode (inverse transparent proxy,
or whatever you want to call it) is somewhat of an afterthought compared to
the standard proxy use case.  If it supports the ability to direct traffic
based upon the virtual host address, then squid works - if not, I think I
have to go the Apache route... I also wonder just how good Apache's
mod_proxy caching is?  Any thoughts?


-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Hathaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Zope] Caching/http-acceleration and proxying Zope-served

> I have a question, for anyone experienced in working with Zope and caching
> proxies:
> I'm setting up a load-balanced server farm that has nodes that will run
> Apache and proxy (via mod_proxy) to ZEO clients running ZServer.  This
> is routed (both ways) through a layer 4 load-balancing appliance, and all
> these boxes (both nodes and the balancer) are sitting inside a DMZ with
> private IP addresses.  The public world will access these servers via a
> firewall box running transparent proxy (actually, I guess, similar to
> squid's http_accel mode; the semantics here are a bit tricky, as it's more
> of a inverse trans-proxy).  Between Apache and Zope, there would be
> virtual hosts, and I'd be using the SiteAccess product.  It gets a bit
> tricky in that I need to access several different virtual hosts inside the
> DMZ (one for the ZEO farm, and another for a dedicated CGI-based ad server
> on another box) via the proxy.  A more detailed (ascii art) diagram of
> I am trying to do, is at
> My question is this: does anybody have any thoughts on the merits of Squid
> (http accelerator mode) versus Apache/mod_proxy in terms of caching,
> hosts, and the like when working with Zope sites?  Any big pitfalls to
> kind of setup with Zope sites?

I would prefer Squid since its only purpose in life is caching.  It
follows the "do one thing and do it well" mantra.

But whatever your choice, I hope you make use of the new CacheManagement
feature in Zope 2.3.  It is designed to make things like this
straightforward and easy.  There's a recent news announcement that links
to everything you need--including complete help docs!


Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to