Re: New cache relationship - spouse?

From: Craig Bishop <>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:05:24 +1100

Ong Beng Hui wrote:
> > I would suggest we could even simplify that by just asking any spouses
> > whether they have a "FRESH" copy of the object. If so get it from the
> > spouse and remove the local copy. If not do a IMS GET.
> After you have grabbed the copy from spouse, do you cache it ?

"proxy-only" would almost have to be implied by spouse so you wouldn't
cache the object.

> If you don't, all future access will result it very high inter-cache
> traffic. And if you do, there will be either two copies in each
> cache, or object might migrate from caches to caches.

I would expect this sort of relationship to be used when the caches
are tightly coupled. The caches I want to do this with are on a 100MB
ethernet together. I want the inter-cache traffic, it is cheaper than
fetching the object from it's source. It is cheaper for us to spend
more money on the networking and processing required before spending
it on more bandwidth.

> Maybe a two level hierarchy might help, the first been the front end
> that the user access, and the higher level been the caches itself
> that talk to each other or cache by domain.

We have to have high availability and we decided we could not trust
another server running squid to perform that function. We opted for
multiple caches (two at the moment) behind a CISCO Local Director.
This hardware only device provides load share and failover between
the two caches for all the HTTP traffic. Squid handles the load
share and failover for ICP traffic.

Cheers Craig
Received on Mon Nov 18 1996 - 05:06:02 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:33:34 MST