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

From: Amos Jeffries <>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 00:37:44 +1200

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 servers or
sync'ing four global caches. When you think about it, the web server is
merely a file cache with different storage format than Squid.

Then again, Squid only fetches objects as needed. So a file can be
altered twice in a day and never be fetched between. Compared to it
being rsync'ed twice without being used.

> As I said, Squid has a huge advantage due to it's ability to cache in
> memory, but other than that?

Well, its a fairly nasty headache to create CDN using apache and mod_proxy.

> Perhaps I will get better caching results simply with an apache. That
> way there is no IMS, no overhead. That's it.

IMS only happen when objects are thought to be stale. So short-lived
objects are the biggest drag and getting them to all points of the
network on time is always a big problem whether by rsync or not.


Please be using
   Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE9 or 3.1.3
Received on Sun May 16 2010 - 12:37:58 MDT

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