On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Raphaël <raphael.droz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Any takers? > > From another discussion level I wanted to see if cache disk could > compete with Varnish, eg: > - Apache + mod_cache_disk + mod_ssl > could be a better stack than > - Apache + Varnish + Pound. > > So far, I'm under the impression that managing a reverse-caching proxy > with mod_cache is, if even realistically possible, by far more complex > and less powerful than Varnish. "...If even realistically possible"? Hard to take anything else seriously. > That's pretty hard to believe since being an Apache module, mod_cache > theorically benefits from a better integration and higher "knowledge" > from the backend HTTPd. It's a mixed bag. > As an example, caching dynamic resources having different query strings > is a non-issue using Varnish (or most other reverse-proxy caches). > What makes mod_cache so specific in this regard? Should be a non-issue in httpd, the query string is part of the cache key. Is there something wrong here when you don't put CacheEnable in <Location> or is that tainting all the other stuff? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|