Re: Is there a Squid port for NT going on?

   Well, no, it was not a matter of being ordered to. While i
introduced Linux to the company i work for, as a firewall and such,
we simply have already the production servers running NT. I agree
completely with you, but its hard to find a unused machine in here,
everything that is usable - 386 upwards - is running until is dying.
Unless setting up a 386Sx-25 with 8Mb and Linux is a solution - dont
think so. And besides i have more than enough server machines to deal
with, i can easily say no to another one. About all other caching
proxy solutions you mention, they are too cumbersome. MS Proxy sucks,
i've tried it, and the others have too much bulk, like sharing a
dialup connection and stuff. I simply want a caching proxy, and
period. The less resources it uses and the faster it is the better.

Best regards,

Pedro Manuel Rodrigues

> Since you already have a Squid box running Linux, then I assume someone
> has given you an order like "Thou shalt build an NT Proxy!". In this case
> "Thou" needs some sense beeten into them. You'd be much better off running
> on Linux, and it'll cost you a LOT less... RedHat Linux (just started
> playing with 5.0 which is REALLY nice, BTW) is $49 -- and it has some
> reasonable docs of its own now, and Squid will be all of $0. That runs you
> A grand total of $49 for the software, and you'd need the hardware either
> way -- although NT would force you to purchase more hardware than the
> Linux solution would. From personal expierience with both paltforms, Linux
> is much more miserly about it's RAM usage than NT is.
>
> NT Also needs a lot more disk space than Linux. My NT box here uses 179 MB
> for the OS alone (and that doesn't include the bits and pieces it has in
> other places). I had at one time a functional Linux box running with only
> one 40 MB drive, and I have built capable (although very small) caches
> with 170 MB drives. I'd say Linux starts to become a useful OS when you
> have about 120 MB or so of disk space, below that you can't fit enough
> important stuff (notably all the sources and C stuff) to do any cool
> stuff. NT isn't even an option with less than 125 MB (according to the
> box).
>
> And if reliability is a concern, I have several functioning Squid machines
> up right now, one with well over 200 days of uptime. This isn't very
> difficult to achieve with UNIX systems. I've never had an NT box run that
> long without needing a reboot for at least a software patch.
>
> Oh darn, I forgot to disable soapbox mode...
>
> Well, if you have to run on NT (sometimes this happens with our clients
> that have only an NT machine and no money for a new system), then your
> only option is probably Net App's NetCache product, which is somewhat
> similar to Squid. I'm not a big fan of MS Proxy due to the problems I've
> seen it cause. My limited expierience with Netcache shows it to be pretty
> capable, although I admit I havn't ever tested it with much load -- all my
> production caches run Squid on Linux.
>
> -Bill
>
> On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Pedro Manuel wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi to all.
> >
> > I am not a member of this list, but i read in some documentation
> > here was the best place to ask. I have a working Squid solution
> > working under Linux, but now in the company i work for i need to find
> > a good and simple caching proxy for NT. Is there an ongoing port
> > to NT? I was told there is one for OS/2 warp.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Pedro Manuel Rodrigues
> >
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 08 1998 - 02:18:46 MST