Re: [squid-users] Architecture

Hi,
  I can't see the advantage of using lighthttpd instead of squid+carp
as the frontend, and if using lighthttpd i can't see the advantage of
not serving static content directly out of the balancer.
Also watch out as nfs has locking and scaling issues of its own
(assuming thet nfs is what you mean by "single filesystem"), and it
also introduces a very nasty point-of-failure.

On 6/23/09, Ronan Lucio <listas_at_tiper.com.br> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have a high-accessed website and I need to create a cache strategy
> for that.
>
> So I'm thinking to use the follow architecture.
>
> 1) A lighttpd webserver in front of everyone + mod_proxy
> balancing/pointing to some squid servers.
>
> 2) Some squid servers in the middle
>
> 3) Application servers as the backend servers
>
> 4) A third server (lighttpd) to server static resources (images, CSS and
> JS files)
>
> NOTE 1: All servers reading from the storage device
> NOTE 2: Our main goal is to minimize the amount of requests reaching the
> backend servers.
>
> What do you think about that?
> What do you suggest for that?
>
> Thank you,
> Ronan
>

-- 
    /kinkie