On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Neil Gunton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Someone replied to me off-list suggesting using Squid instead of httpd for > the front-end caching reverse proxy. I guess that is a good question - I use > Apache for proxying mainly because I know apache quite well, and like being > able to use mod_rewrite and other neat features that httpd gives. I've never > used Squid. Does anyone have opinions there?
I think you hit the main issue right there: squid is not apache and you can't use the same tools with it. I also haven't seen any recent benchmark suggesting squid performs better, but I'd like to run a set of benchmarks on all the recent proxy servers to really sort this out. > Does anyone run a 3-layer combination of Squid for cache, and then an Apache > front end proxy (no mod_cache) for it's mod_rewrite capabilities, and then > the back-end mod_perl server? That's a bad idea. Too much overhead. > I need mod_rewrite at some point for stuff like stopping image hotlinking > from other websites (people stealing my bandwidth by making my server act as > an image server for their forums, auctions etc), and other access control > stuff. I'll have to look into whether squid can do all that. Squid can do a lot, but you have to learn it, and it's not as comprehensive as apache. One thing you didn't mention is why you're using mod_cache at all for things not generated by mod_perl. Why don't you serve the static files directly from your front-end server? That's the most common setup I've seen, with proxying only for mod_perl requests. - Perrin
