<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Depends how you use Squid.<br><br>If you use Squid to do caching, Perlbal won't help you.<br>If you only use Squid to do reverse proxying, Perlbal's much better (IMO).
<br></blockquote>
<div>Earlier you mentioned that <a href="http://Typepad.com">Typepad.com</a> uses both Perlbal and Squid. To my understanding, only reverse proxying is needed to do caching of websites. Why would they need both Squid and Perlbal then?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/6/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Brad Fitzpatrick</b> <<a href="mailto:brad@danga.com">brad@danga.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, <a href="mailto:drpr0ctologist@gmail.com">drpr0ctologist@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br><br>
> ><br>> > No. Several large sites do this. <a href="http://Typepad.com">Typepad.com</a>, for instance.<br>><br>> Can Perlbal replace Squid? Or do they serve different purposes?<br><br>Depends how you use Squid.
<br><br>If you use Squid to do caching, Perlbal won't help you.<br>If you only use Squid to do reverse proxying, Perlbal's much better (IMO).<br><br>- Brad<br><br></blockquote></div><br>