According to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I will probably do that next. I am not clear what the difference is
> between running squid and doing a mod_proxy, in the case of all dynamic
> content... a remark in the tuning guide that i saw back in June was vague about
> this, saying it wasnt clear whether squid can cache larger doucments or
> if there is some limit.
I don't think there is much difference in practice, although when
I was running a squid front-end I noticed a substantial number of
'client-refresh' hits pulling images that should have been in the cache
from the back-end server anyway.
> I did read the guide, although I didnt re-read it enough, as Vivek
> so very gently pointed out to me. I think that there needs to be an
> intro that says, basically, if you expect more than N requests per
> minute for dynamic content, then start from this config, and the rest
> of the tuning guide is all about tweaking that.
It really isn't hits/second that matters - it is how fast each server
process can move on to the next request. If all of your clients were on a
fast local network a proxy would just be extra overhead but on the
internet you will have a certain number of slow connections that tie
up the servers.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
