httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Holsman <>
Subject Re: mod_cache_shared?
Date Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:21:57 GMT
My only thoughts is that if you could integrate with ICP (which squid 
uses) it might make it easier to get mod_cache_shared installed, tested, 
and used in large organizations who already use a caching solution.

That way they could put a single mod_cache_shared into their existing 
pool and see how it works/compares to squid, and then slowly move their 
existing base to mod_cache_shared if it is better.

Inventing yet another protocol is not going to help people switch over. 
(and it is bound to get complex quickly as all the boundary cases get 
added into the protocol)


(same thing can be applied to HTCP or CARP.. I'm protocol agnostic when 
it comes to choosing, but -0.5 on inventing another one)

Paul Querna wrote:
> I have been thinking about some ideas for allowing multiple 
> mod_disk_cache instances to share their cache.
> There are existing 'solutions' to 'this' problem:
>   - HTCP, RFC 2756,
>   - ICP, RFC 2186 and RFC 2187,
>   - CARP,
> I've only done a quick look at each, and they all seem to be overly 
> complicated.  If anyone has experience with these or other methods, 
> please speak up :)
> HTCP seems like the best pre-designed solution at this time.  It doesn't 
> look like it got much adoption from any other proxy/cache servers. 
> Anyone know why?
> But, the 'lets do this quickly and make it work' part of me says, we can 
> design something very simple and 'stupid', that uses the knowledge of 
> how mod_cache works.
> What we would do is create a new mod_cache backend, 'mod_cache_shared'.
> It would run in the Quick Handler, after the other cache methods.  This 
> mod_cache_shared would use some communication protocol to request this 
> document from its peers.
> If no peer replied in 5 ms, we would DECLINE the quick handler, and 
> continue on the normal path of a cache miss. Of course, giving-up 
> timeout would be configurable.
> If a peer replied with 'yes we have this', we would fetch it from there, 
> and *also* insert the required output filters, to add it to our local 
> cache.
> Thoughts?
> -Paul

View raw message