Re: Cacheflow vs. Squid

Fraser Campbell wrote:
>
> Someone has contacted me regarding a product called Cacheflow. He/they
> claim their product is vastly superior to Squid. I'd like to know if
> anyone here has any experience or comments with the product
> (http://www.cacheflow.com/).
>
> The product apparently uses "active caching". This is it "by keeping
> track of both user requests and content changes and by sending refresh
> requests based on algorithms that calculate the probability that a refresh
> will be needed. CacheFlow says this technique can boost hit rate to as
> high as 75%, compared with 30% to 40% in most cache systems."
>
> I would say that this prefetching of a page (while it may slightly
> increase response time) is going to use just as much bandwidth (possibly
> more). What does everyone think? Has anyone here used Cachflow? Sorry,
> if this is slightly off topic but I believe comparing alternative caching
> systems to be relevant.

Sounds like they're trading off bandwidth and spending it on speed.

D

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT d- s++: a C++++$ UL++++B+++S+++C++H++U++V+++$ P+++$ L+++ E-
W+++(--)$ N++ w++$>--- t+ 5++ X+() R+ tv b++++ DI+++ e- h-@ 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------