RE: Squid vs. NetCache

How about a graph of price/performance? :-)

Whatever the figures that whoever can roll out, it would need an independent
body of both squid or netcache to give genuine fairness of testing.

Also, I should imagine the squid that they testing with was probably 1.1.x
which has a far higher response time than 1.2, in my humble set up!

Tim.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: WaiSun Chia [mailto:WaiSun.Chia@digital.com]
> Sent: 28 May 1998 07:24
> To: 'squid-users@nlanr.net'
> Subject: Squid vs. NetCache
>
>
> Dear fellow squidsters,
> I've stumbled upon this while surfing, especially check out the 2 graphs
> depicting Max URLs per hour and Median Response time.
>
> Are they for real or just a lot of hot air? Any Squid gurus are familiar
> with the Harvest Benchmark?
>
> "NetCache delivered significantly higher throughput
> and faster response time than Squid or other Unix based web caching
> commercial solutions,
> as shown in comparisons below. This workload consisted of a data
> set with a size of
> 221MB, 15000 URLs and a cache hit rate of 30%."
>
> More details at:
> http://www.netapp.com/products/level3/netcache/webcache.html
>
>
> Wai Sun
>
Received on Thu May 28 1998 - 11:15:30 MDT