[Zope] Network Appliances NetCache vs. Squid

[Scott Burton]

Why do you really need to accelerate the site?
If you have a highly dynamic site, no acceleration appliances will work.
There may be a few things you can do on your end first to see if there is
something easy to do to your instance of Zope.

Have you run profiling to see what is the bottleneck? Are there some
expensive scripts that may need some reworking for better performance?
Profiling can help with that. Do you efficiently use Zope's caching
mechanisms like caching templates and images in ram, or increasing the size
of the ZODB cache? What OS is running Zope? Could you proxy Apache in front
of Zope on the same machine using mod_cache to speed up images etc.? Could
you build a simple 1u Linux box with ZEO and Squid on it as the accelerator
for less than a netappliance?

I would look into those things(if you haven't already) before worrying about
a caching/accelerator.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Burgauer" <marc@sharedbase.com>
To: <zope@zope.org>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 3:57 AM
Subject: [Zope] Network Appliances NetCache vs. Squid


> My host has offered me to try accelerating a busy zope-based site using a
> Network Appliances NetCache. He kept the device from a customer which went
> bankrupt.
>
> Neither of us has any experience with the device. If anybody can share
some
> insights in regard to Zope and how this compares in use something like
Squid
> as a reverse proxy, I'd be most thankful.
>
> On that note, what are the issues of running squid on the same machine as
> the Zope instance to be cached? Are substantial gains only achieved if
Squid
> sits on its own box?
>
> Cheers
>
> Marc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
> **   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
> (Related lists -
>  http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
>  http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
>