Re: [squid-users] comparing squid with IIS 4.0

20-Mar-02 at 05:29, khiz code (khizcode@yahoo.com) wrote :
> i was actually planning to switch between my IIS and squid using cisco CSS
> 11151 for dynamic (.asp) and static content respectively > but if the web
serving (request handling) capability of IIS is inherently more > than that
of squid ..or in plain words IIS is more powerful than squid then it > would
not make much sense to pass all the static requests to squid .. squid > would
simply get overwhelmed isnt it ( i m not planning to have a cache > cluster)

Well, let's put it another way.

IIS you are going to run anyway. Putting Squid in front of it will allow it to
handle MORE requests because Squid will serve cached stuff (even dynamically
generated, if you do your ACLs / no_cache declarations well) and send on only
the "relevant" requests to IIS.

So you already have ~some~ form of load balancing, load sharing, or whatever
you want to call it.

Squid will keep improving and you can patch / fine tune it as much as you
want. With IIS, clearly, you can't do this.

So it's a kind of best of two worlds scenario - the pure req/s of a dedicated
web server app and the loadsharing / acceleration, in terms of latency at
least, of an ever evolving, open source proxy product.

The word "powerful" has to be put in context: a "powerful" torque wrench is
not the tool for screwing a spectacle lens holder screw tightly, it's all
about using the right tools for the right job.

Of course, if your web server only has static content, there's no point using
a reverse proxy. Reverse proxies come into their own when they handle dynamic
pages.

-- 
John Lennon:--v [Simon White. vim/mutt/Linux. simon@mtds.com. GIMPS: 46.75%] 
Sometimes we sit and read other people's interpretations of our lyrics
and think, 'Hey, that's pretty good.' If we liked it, we would keep our
mouths shut and just accept the credit as if it was what we meant all along.