"Amos Jeffries" <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:499751AD.5030706@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Eric B. wrote: > I've found a noticable speed increase (50%) in all sites when I placed a > squid box in front of the web servers. But your experience may vary. Wow - that's amazing. I guess I'm a little confused as to how / why squid is so much more effective at serving static content than apache would be for instance. Given the same static image or the same static html, what makes squid so much better / faster? >> I guess I can see squid would end up offloading some of the processing >> from tomcat, but if I were to put them on the same server, then it ends >> up being the same CPU/disk that get used, so I don't see any advantages >> there either - the processing power just gets shifted from one app to >> another. > > Tomcat will attempting to re-generate content it does not have to, simply > because it has a dynamic type or because its not storing the response > headers. Squid will fix this minor CPU waste. > As I said though if they are on different boxes, that is when savings are > maximized. How does squid know what is static and can be cached, and what is dynamic? Is that based on configuration of file extensions? ie: cache html pages, jpg and gif, but not php and jsp? Furthermore, if a request is made with the same uri & query string, will squid cache the result? Thanks for the info! Eric
