News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Traffic Server Proposal by es3754 on Wednesday July 08, 2009 @05:37PM (#694758)
Wonder how this will compare to Nginx speed-wise...
Re:Traffic Server Proposal by pantsd on Thursday July 09, 2009 @12:18AM (#695215)
I could really go for a sane caching load balancer. My experience with stuff like pound,squid and nginx so far leaves much to be desired (and chaining them isn't exactly desirable either). Why do they have default maximum url lengths less than IE that can only be fixed with a recompile, its madness I tell you :p
Re:Traffic Server Proposal by forkqueue on Thursday July 09, 2009 @02:28AM (#695350)
Might want to try Varnish ( http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/ ), which has seriously impressed me with both its performance and flexibility.

I'm really interested to see how TrafficServer stacks up compared to Varnish.

Re:Traffic Server Proposal by matrix on Wednesday July 08, 2009 @02:41PM (#694399)
The proposal is a bit light on details - does anyone know if this has multilayer switch capabilities?

My kingdom for an open source layer 7 switch...

Re:Traffic Server Proposal by sp332 on Wednesday July 08, 2009 @04:30PM (#694608)
Re:Traffic Server Proposal by Travis on Wednesday July 08, 2009 @01:42PM (#694281)
From my understanding, this is kind of a squid / load balancer in one? Or is it really just Yahoo's version of squid?
Re:Traffic Server Proposal by sstrudeau on Wednesday July 08, 2009 @05:12PM (#694713)
Travis, yeah my impression is similar -- a reverse proxy cache (e.g., Squid or Varnish) plus a light weight layer 7 load balancer (which is how I tend to use nginx)
Re:Traffic Server Proposal by skorgu on Wednesday July 08, 2009 @08:22PM (#694954)
I'd love to see a comparison with varnish which has extremely similar aims.
Re:Traffic Server Proposal by skorgu on Friday July 10, 2009 @08:08AM (#697519)
I don't understand why this comment was downvoted?