memcached vs squid
jallspaw at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 9 15:31:11 PST 2005
for html docs and images, squid works quite well. it's meant for this, and when setup correctly, especially in reverse-proxy mode, you can get some great performance and stability.
we use both memcached and squid at flickr.
----- Original Message ----
From: Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu>
To: Daryn Nakhuda <daryn at spamarrest.com>
Cc: memcached at lists.danga.com
Sent: Wed Nov 9 11:57:53 2005
Subject: Re: memcached vs squid
Daryn Nakhuda wrote:
> Any opinions or stong arguments for one or the other? I’ve used both
> heavily in the past and can really think of pros/cons for either.
If you use memcached for this, you need an extra layer of interpreted or
executed logic between memcached and the web server for each request you
process. Squid doesn't need one, so I expect it would be faster in this
On the other hand, last I checked (which was a long while ago), Squid
didn't easily do fault-tolerant distributed caches, so if you need that
kind of functionality, memcached is the way to go.
Ivan Krstic <krstic at fas.harvard.edu> | 0x147C722D
More information about the memcached