Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:20:31 -0000 From: paul@originative.co.uk To: asmodai@wxs.nl, opsys@open-systems.net Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: QUESTION: FBSD + SQUID or FBSD + APACHE? Message-ID: <A6D02246E1ABD2119F5200C0F0303D10FDBB@OCTOPUS>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai [mailto:asmodai@wxs.nl] > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 7:53 PM > To: Open Systems Inc. > Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: RE: QUESTION: FBSD + SQUID or FBSD + APACHE? > > > On 13-Jan-99 Open Systems Inc. wrote: > > > We are moving to a new building in ~45 days. They > have a NT web > > server farm of around 15 boxes. All the boxes sit on a > switched ethernet > > network. The question I have is what would be faster and be > the biggest > > performance boost: Squid doing caching + accelerating the > NT web servers > > on FBSD of course, or Apache + Proxy/Caching module? > > > Basically what im trying to do is pull the web > content from the NT > > boxes over to a FBSD box and make the FBSD boxes do the > actuall serving > > because they will obviously perform alot better. > > Go with Apache and a caching module, as Squid is purely based > on caching > HTTP data and not really serving this data, whereas Apache is > a pure HTTPd. It depends rather a lot on what the NT servers are actually serving. A lot of IIS content can be very IIS specific and Apache won't be able to serve it without rewriting your web applications. Paul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A6D02246E1ABD2119F5200C0F0303D10FDBB>