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 <pyh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2010/5/16 Reverse Squid <reversesquid@xxxxxxxxx>: >> 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 > http://duxieweb.com/ >
