Re: [squid-users] Replace squid with "A Box" ??

At 10:38 AM 5/31/01 +0100, Pat Newby wrote:
>We're running squid on a Solaris machine.
>
>Over the past few months, I've been forwarding messages to managers
>and networking people here, from squid-users, about why transparent
>caching will not work. We're an IE5 site, which doesn't help.
>
>Our head of networking says that he can buy a box (for example a
>"NetCache C1100 Web Caching Appliance") which will do transparent
>caching with no problems. The rest of the world is doing this, so it
>must be a problem with squid, in that squid is unable to do the same.

Squid can do transparent caching but that requires some effort. Squid is
not a "box" that you buy, power up and use in 2 seconds. It is a software
package that needs to be installed. It requires an OS etc etc. Now there is
no reason for a company to build such a kit and sell it a "plug-and-play"
device. If you stick with a basic (or a few basic) configurations this can
be done with ease.

I do not want to advocate Squid. I use it and am very happy with it.
Actually my squid on Solaris 2.5 (on a 5 year old Sun Ultra-1) managed an
up-time of over 400 days last year (and then construction in the server
area forced me to power it off)

The main issue is that configuring/installing servers is not easy. It
requires time and skill. If it is the first time you install something you
need to learn. This is the main issue with Squid (and any other server package)

By the way not the whole world is doing transparent caching.... The
majority just configures a proxy. This is simple and just as (if not more)
efficient. If the proxy setup is complex use proxy auto-configuration. If
you want to force users to use the proxy, just block direct access to port
TCP port 80 in your router (you will have 100% using the proxy within a few
days)

>On a similiar topic, he says that the same box will cache streaming
>media, which squid is unable to do at the moment. (And that it will
>do a lot of other things as well of course).

If it is real-time (like radio) caching would be useless and actually I do
not see how that will work. Non real-time could be cached and if it uses
http squid could (in concept) cache it if the expire-info does not prevent
caching in the first place.

>Would anyone care to comment ?
>
>Pat.
>Pat Newby, IT and Computing Services (ITCS),
> University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.

---------------------------------------------------------
Marc van Selm
NATO C3 Agency, CSD/A

*********************************************************
** All statements in this mail are made from my own **
** personal perspective and do not necessarily reflect **
** my employer opinions or policies. **
*********************************************************
Received on Thu May 31 2001 - 06:23:39 MDT