Re: [squid-users] Architecture

Hi Kinkie,

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:51:17 +0200, Kinkie wrote
> Hi,
> I can't see the advantage of using lighthttpd instead of squid+carp
> as the frontend,

The idea of putting a lighttpd server as a the frontend is for load balance.

What exactly do you mean with squid+carp? several squid servers working as one?
Can I have it working in an external DataCenter?
If so it seems to be a better solution, even because it's a fault tolerance
solution.

> and if using lighthttpd i can't see the advantage of
> not serving static content directly out of the balancer.

Actually, I'm just afraid of overload the server.
Initially I don't know exactly how much resources would it consume from each
server.
If a server like that fits executing two roles, I'm sure it would be better.

> 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.

Yes, it's a NAS.

Kinkie, the architecture shouldn't be that suggested from me.
It's just how I could figure out. Of course I want to make it better.
Do you have a suggestion for that?

For all I have understood your suggestion is:

1) Some squid servers + carp

2) Application server as the backend servers

3) A third server serving static resources

I just didn't figure out your suggestion for storage.

Thank you,
Ronan
Received on Tue Jun 23 2009 - 23:18:44 MDT