Traffic Server Proposal

#1

Post by lpgauth » Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 4:22 PM UTC

Traffic Server Proposal
wiki.apache.org

Re: Traffic Server Proposal

#2

Post by Travis » Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 5:42 PM UTC

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

#3

Post by matrix » Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 6:41 PM UTC

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

#4

Post by sp332 » Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 8:30 PM UTC

matrix wrote: post #3

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...

Does L7 count? http://l7-filter.sourceforge.net/README

Re: Traffic Server Proposal

#5

Post by sstrudeau » Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 9:12 PM UTC

Travis wrote: post #2

From my understanding, this is kind of a squid / load balancer in one? Or is it really just Yahoo's version of squid?

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

#6

Post by es3754 » Wed, Jul 08, 2009, 9:37 PM UTC

Wonder how this will compare to Nginx speed-wise...

Re: Traffic Server Proposal

#7

Post by skorgu » Thu, Jul 09, 2009, 12:22 AM UTC

I'd love to see a comparison with varnish which has extremely similar aims.

Re: Traffic Server Proposal

#8

Post by pantsd » Thu, Jul 09, 2009, 4:18 AM UTC

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

#9

Post by forkqueue » Thu, Jul 09, 2009, 6:28 AM UTC

pantsd wrote: post #8

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

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

#10

Post by skorgu » Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 12:08 PM UTC

skorgu wrote: post #7

I'd love to see a comparison with varnish which has extremely similar aims.

I don't understand why this comment was downvoted?