Hey,
Using Squid for some time now (reverse) to speed up my web page for my clients.
While I simply purge my HTML files to make Squid come back and take
'em, can't I just rsync them over to a local apache, instead of Squid?
That way I will even save the first request (all the files will simply
be
2010/5/16 Reverse Squid :
> Hey,
>
> Using Squid for some time now (reverse) to speed up my web page for my
> clients.
> While I simply purge my HTML files to make Squid come back and take
> 'em, can't I just rsync them over to a local apache, instead of Squid?
> That way I will even save the firs
Thanks Jeff.
With that many Squid server it will become more of a headache than
anything else.
But what about with 4 servers? in different locations around the
globe, so cache_peer is not an option (high latency).
As I said, Squid has a huge advantage due to it's ability to cache in
memory, but ot
2010/5/16 Reverse Squid :
> Perhaps I will get better caching results simply with an apache. That
> way there is no IMS, no overhead. That's it.
>
> What do you think?
Hi,
A simple case, each squid box I maintained the concurrent connections
could be around 3.
But for Apache you can't get th
Reverse Squid wrote:
Thanks Jeff.
With that many Squid server it will become more of a headache than
anything else.
But what about with 4 servers? in different locations around the
globe, so cache_peer is not an option (high latency).
Latency is much the same, whether sync'ing four global web
