httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] for 1.2.X: proxy screwup
Date Thu, 14 Aug 1997 23:14:27 GMT
When I last evaluated Squid for use as an accelerator I had a few issues
with it: 

- no vhost support
- logging is different than apache (ad sites want all the logs), would
  require extra effort to generate as comprehensive logs as my client had
- URL remapping wasn't as powerful
- no persistent connections

The first and third aren't issues any longer with squid.  They have
persistent but not pipelined connections in beta.  So I always recommend
squid as an accelerator right now. 

The Apache code has improved over the past few months ... with all the
timeout fixes.  But our process model isn't very condusive to good

For a generic caching proxy I always recommend squid. 

BTW, we are about to see some commercial proxies appear that are actually
quite well done.  I was talking with some folks who have an HTTP/1.1 proxy
which will have pipelining, compression, and delta-compression (keeps old
copies of things so that diffs can be sent between peer proxies)... that's
really hard to beat. 

All that said, I don't understand why we would want to unbundle it.  Other
than maybe we're embarassed by it??  But that hasn't stopped us before :)


On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> At 11:18 PM 8/13/97 +0100, Paul Sutton wrote:
> >Is there perhaps an argument for unbundling mod_proxy from the rest of
> >Apache? It is a significant module that can stand on its own feet and
> >really provides a completely different (and complementary) set of
> >funtionality to that provided by the rest of Apache.
> The question I would have us ask ourselves is, is there a reason why we
> feel we could create a better, more complete, or "different for good
> reasons" proxy than Squid?  Squid has the benefit of support from a
> research institution, is focused on proxying, and runs hella fast.  If
> something like Squid did not exist I wouldn't entertain the option of not
> having the proxy; but since it's there are free (? not sure if license is
> as free as ours) then it might make some sense to not spin cycles
> supporting it some more.  Chuck has done an admirable job, and I mean this
> as absolutely no slight at him, but it's far too big for any one person to
> develop.
> 	Brian
> --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
> "Why not?" - TL  - -

View raw message