aja at danskespil.dk
Wed Jul 19 08:49:18 CEST 2006
Squid is much more efficient than apache for caching, so you will often be able to serve 4-10 times as many clients with Beats setup, compared with using apache mod_cache.
Have you read the article on typo3.org about www.forbrug.dk where they developed cache control headers for TYPO3 ?
Infrastruktur, Dansk Tipstjeneste A/S
Korsdalsvej 135, 2605 Brøndby
Fra: typo3-english-bounces at lists.netfielders.de [mailto:typo3-english-bounces at lists.netfielders.de] På vegne af Nagita Karunaratne
Sendt: 18. juli 2006 22:17
Til: TYPO3 English
Emne: Re: [TYPO3] mod_cache
I was told that cache-control headers was more for caching on the client side.
I asked another person and they suggested this as well but I was told
that Apache caches pages so there is no point caching pages in two
location on the server.
What is your hardware specs:
Is there only one site on the machine?
How many pages are a cached?
Do you allocate the set amount of RAM for the cache?
On 7/18/06, Beat Takeshi <beat-takeshi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Nagita Karunaratne wrote:
> > Is anybody using apache mod_cache + mod_disk_cache/mod_mem_cache?
> > Can you give your configuration and hardware specs?
> > Is it having an effect on performace?
> > Thanks,
> > Nagita
> I'm not using mod_cache but squid as a local http proxy running on a
> test system. So squid listens on port 80 and pages not served from the
> cache get forwarded to apache on port 81.
> If you conigure TYPO3 to send the correct caching-headers, it works like
> a charm, since squid is much smaller and faster than apache.
> TYPO3-english mailing list
> TYPO3-english at lists.netfielders.de
TYPO3-english mailing list
TYPO3-english at lists.netfielders.de
More information about the TYPO3-english