> Hi,
>
> Network Appliance claims that their NetCache is superior to Squid in
> that it is more reliable, faster, has a better user interface and more
> built-in statistics, fully supports HTTP/1.1, and includes all of
> Squid's features (maybe I forgot some arguments). And it also runs
> under NT, but that's nothing I'd need.
>
I had a look at the documentation they have on the web and couldn't find
where they stated it was faster than Squid ("faster ... than any other proxy
on the market" - read commercial - I did find).
> I would be interested in real-live experience about NetCache. Does it
> really behave that much better as they want to make us believe? What
> are the drawbacks (other than not having the source code)?
>
Basically, you make your choice, you pay your money.
I haven't looked at NetCache for a long time now, when I tried to use it,
under evaluation, the temporary key didn't work and I left it for alpha 1.0
Squid.
If you need the few additional features it offers, then take it. Squid, by
nature and origin, has a much faster development cycle, so it's pretty quick
to react to problems with fixes.
tom@interact.net.au
Received on Sat Jul 19 1997 - 06:10:57 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:35:48 MST