Re: Hi there

I would think the overhead would be smaller than running two instances of squid on the same box, which is what I have to do, the "outer" squid runs the cache, and te "inner" squid contacts the content filter. Since I can specify what will and will not go through the icap, I can collapse them into a single squid process. My hope is that things will speed up in the collapsed architecture.

_J

>>> Alex North <alex.north@sensorynetworks.com> 11/20/06 6:39 PM >>>
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> mån 2006-11-20 klockan 07:58 -0500 skrev Jeremy Hall:
>
>> I can say from personal experience using the filters patch that it needs work and I would like to see option 2, the icap mode, further developed.
>
> Further agreed, and is why I listed Squid-3 with ICAP as the first
> alternative.

On a Squid-3 proxy that was being worked hard, what would you estimate
the performance hit of putting every response through ICAP would be?
There would obviously be an introduced latency, but do you have an idea
how much sending every response to an ICAP server would impact throughput?

I've got some very efficient content-filtering technology, so I want to
avoid as much overhead as possible in getting the response data to and
from the filter.

Alex

-- 
Alex North
Sensory Networks Pty. Ltd.
Level 6, 140 William St.
East Sydney, NSW 2011
Australia