Re: [squid-users] Re: comparing squid with IIS 4.0

25-Mar-02 at 15:03, "Miquel van Smoorenburg" (list-squid@news.cistron.nl) wrote :
> Simon White <simon@mtds.com> wrote:
> Webservers are heavy and don't respond well to hundreds of *simultaneous*
> slow clients. Squid excels in that.
>
> So try your benchmark again with a few thousand connects from simulated
> 28k8 clients.

I wasn't benchmarking myself, just got to thinking theoretically about
that. Since indeed Squid can take load off a server by always d/ling files
at ethernet speeds, it can help in giving dialup users a more steady
stream of data, because a CGI script that is spitting out data will have
to wait for the client to catch up, so this is indeed a good point. The
CGI will execute, pass the content to Squid, and free up memory much more
quickly, allowing Squid to hold on, passing the HTML output to the dialup
client.

> --
> The From: and Reply-To: addresses are internal news2mail gateway addresses.
> Reply to the list or to "Miquel van Smoorenburg" <miquels@cistron.nl>

Now, if you used a mail client like mutt, then mail you send to a list
could have a rule to set your From and Reply To addresses properly, if
necessary.

However, for the list, I will just reply to the list and that's it. Your
signature would look better if it said "please reply to the list, I will
not receive direct replies to my Reply To address" or something like that.

In any case, replies that are specifically for your eyes only should go to
your Reply-To address, and replies for the list should /always/ just go to
the list.

-- 
[Simon White. vim/mutt. simon@mtds.com. GIMPS:54.76% see www.mersenne.org]
All this talk about everyone being connected to the Internet by the year
xxxx ignores the simple fact that a large number of people in the world
are fighting for survival.
[Arbitrary quotes signature rotation, a simple bash script by Simon White]