On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 08:50:31AM +1100, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> I read a web site the other day, but can't remember where. Oh,
> well. It had an interesting alternative to speeding up an otherwise
> dynamic web server:
>
> Install squid as a transparent proxy of the site itself, in "front"
> of the server. Squid hands off cached copies of rendered pages
> that haven't expired yet, leaving the existing web
> server/{perl,php,whatever} as a back-end page assembly or "rendering"
> engine.
We've been doing this for about 2 years. Unfortunately Squid isn't really
a good option for it as it doesn't do SSL, so we use Netscape Proxy.
> It would be an interesting performance comparison, I think.
>From a performance point of view it doesn't make a lot of difference - Squid
isn't really any faster than Apache, especially not when you consider that
for a number of requests it will have to go to the real web server to get
the data.
Where it does win out is when you want to "host" your website at a different
place to where you want to host your actual content. eg, your website
obviously needs to be on the internet, but you might want to host your
content inside your firewalls. Security-wise it's better only allowing the
one host (the proxy) to access the real webserver inside your firewall,
rather than letting then entire Internet get to it in some way.
Scott.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
