Web Servers on Unix and Linux - better proxy? squid vs apache2

Author

better proxy? squid vs apache2

Timothy Larson

2006-03-21, 8:47 pm

Hello,

I have an Apache2 server running a couple sites, when I discovered I
have to implement an Apache1 server to run some legacy stuff. I thought
to have Apache2 serve as a reverse proxy for it, but then considered
that could be a lot of overhead to just pass a request through to
another server. Would Squid be a better option in terms of efficient
resource use? I haven't ever set up a reverse proxy, and am concerned
about port numbers being "mixed up" in links and HTTP headers returned
to the client. Is this a concern with either Apache2 or Squid? Does
one deal with it better than the other?

If anyone has experience or can point me to a good comparison, I'd
greatly appreciate it. I've tried Googling but there is almost too much
to sift through in order to find what I am looking for.

Thanks,
Tim

Nick Kew

2006-03-25, 11:35 am

Timothy Larson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have an Apache2 server running a couple sites, when I discovered I
> have to implement an Apache1 server to run some legacy stuff.

Apache 1 is four years obsolete. If the legacy stuff hasn't been
updated, I should treat that as a warning sign.

> I thought
> to have Apache2 serve as a reverse proxy for it, but then considered
> that could be a lot of overhead to just pass a request through to
> another server.

Why?

Would Squid be a better option in terms of efficient
> resource use?

Couldn't say.

I haven't ever set up a reverse proxy, and am concerned
> about port numbers being "mixed up" in links and HTTP headers returned
> to the client. Is this a concern with either Apache2 or Squid? Does
> one deal with it better than the other?

http://www.apacheweek.com/features/reverseproxies

Can't speak for squid.

--
Nick Kew

Timothy Larson

2006-04-02, 7:18 pm

Nick Kew wrote:
> Apache 1 is four years obsolete. If the legacy stuff hasn't been
> updated, I should treat that as a warning sign.

*shrug* It's the reality of the situation I'm in.

>
> Why?

My Apache2 has mod_perl and mod_php, which makes it large. Firing up a
25MB process just to hand a request to another server seems excessive.

Tim

Nick Kew

2006-04-02, 7:18 pm

Timothy Larson wrote:

>
>
> My Apache2 has mod_perl and mod_php, which makes it large. Firing up a
> 25MB process just to hand a request to another server seems excessive.

I expect squid would look pretty ungainly too if you added that
much unneeded extra stuff to it.

--
Nick Kew

Paul Rubin

2006-04-02, 7:18 pm

Timothy Larson <thelarsons3@cox.net> writes:
> through to another server. Would Squid be a better option in terms of
> efficient resource use? I haven't ever set up a reverse proxy, and am
> concerned about port numbers being "mixed up" in links and HTTP
> headers returned to the client. Is this a concern with either Apache2
> or Squid? Does one deal with it better than the other?

Nobody has maintained Squid in a long time, I think. Better check on
that though.

I R A Darth Aggie

2006-04-02, 7:18 pm

On 28 Mar 2006 08:51:05 -0800,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid>, in
<7xy7yuikcm.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> wrote:

>+ Nobody has maintained Squid in a long time, I think. Better check on
>+ that though.

http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v2/2.5/

squid-2.5.STABLE13 Mar 12 2006

You have a most interesting definition of "a long time".

--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

Timothy Larson

2006-04-02, 7:18 pm

Nick Kew wrote:
> Timothy Larson wrote:
>
>
> I expect squid would look pretty ungainly too if you added that
> much unneeded extra stuff to it.
>

Even a standard Apache process might be fairly heavy when you're asking
this little of it, but I don't know that unless someone can make some
comparisons to Squid for me...hence this line of questioning.

Tim