View Single Post
  #10  
Old 30th November 2005, 15:10
RotHorseKid RotHorseKid is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 8
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenaka
I do not udnerstand this fully, isn't traffic still going through apache? the only difference I see is that apache isn't delivering to the client but to squid. And squid, I suppose is requesting from apache in the same way a client would, so the logfiles should still be ok as usual? Or is there a major point I am missing here?
The problem is, AFAIK ISPconfig is using the Apache logs to find out which site is generating how much traffic.
With Squid in front of Apache, Squid serves the content it has cached directly, Apache does not know about that, therefore it will not be in the logs (the log/web_log files found beneath the web directories).
BUT the traffic is generated anyway (at the external interface of my server, where my ISP measures the traffic, they don't care if it's cached or if apache served it), and I (resp. my clients) still have to pay for that.
At least I believe that is how it works. Tell me if I am wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenaka
c) can you explain in a little bit more detail here? are you talking about optimizing mysql settings?
Not exactly.
I serve a web page that has some content coming from a DB. Connecting to this DB is VEEERY expensive, latency-wise (it's Oracle, perhaps you know what I mean, in my case there are round-trips of 1000-1500ms).
What I know is that some of these pages are static over a long period of time (like the items in a webshop for example). So I go ahead and serve these pages with a Cache-Control: public http header. (Think header() in PHP for example).
Squid caches these pages now, and there are no DB connections.
Reply With Quote