Re: [squid-users] Advice regarding Squid Vs "regular" Apache

From: Reverse Squid <>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 13:52:49 +0300

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 other than that?
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?

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Peng, Jeff <> wrote:
> 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 first request (all the files will simply
>> be there), save all the over-head and IMS requests and everything.
>> I would simply copy my files over upon every update and save them in
>> the local file system.
>> I don't even need mod_cache or anything.
>> Other than maybe serving cached objects off memory and enabling
>> cache_peers for faster replies, why would I need Squid?
> Once I maintained 200+ Squid boxes for reverse proxies.
> No squid, but copying files each by each with those number of physics servers?
> That's a horrible job.
> Also Squid answers most objects from its memory, that's faster than
> from disk like Apache does.
> If your squid box is far away from original server, then using a
> suitable cache_peer cluster is worth a try.
> --
> Tech support agency in China
Received on Sun May 16 2010 - 10:52:57 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun May 16 2010 - 12:00:04 MDT