Re: [squid-users] 50 requests per second?

Yes, the Cisco 6509 will be our single point of failure. I think when you
blow over 100k on a router and Cisco is only 20 minutes away, it shouldn't
be a problem getting htem to fix/replace it :-) .. but, the 6509 is not my
responsibility.

WCCP would be great, but I couldn't get it to work. The wccp module for
linux seems to be shoddy and not a clean simple thing to do. I need to be
able to clearly document what I am doing in case I leave and someone else
has to take over, or rebuild the box..

any more suggestions would be welcomed. thanks

Mark
------------------( Forwarded letter 1 follows )---------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 20:37:39 -0500
To: AaronS@et-n-m.com
Cc: Mark.H.Price, squid-users@squid-cache.org
From: joe@swelltech.com
Subject: Re: [squid-users] 50 requests per second?

Well...The Cisco doesn't have moving parts. That makes it a less likely
point of failure than a Squid box.

But since that's the case, I'm confused why Mark is asking about meshes
and trees. Use WCCP, Mark. That's what it is for. But you don't need
two boxes for effective failure prevention--WCCP will stop redirecting
if the cache fails, and will instead route directly to the internet.

Aaron Seelye wrote:
> So your single point of failure is a Cisco 6509? :)
>
> Aaron
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Mark.H.Price@AOC.STATE.NC.US
>>[mailto:Mark.H.Price@AOC.STATE.NC.US]
>>Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:18 AM
>>To: joe@swelltech.com
>>Cc: squid-users@squid-cache.org
>>Subject: Re: [squid-users] 50 requests per second?
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, while it may not be necessary to use 2 load balanced boxes
>>for serving that many, it would be frowned upon in my environment
>>to have a single point of failure. Our network is focusing on a Cisco
>>6509 we have that will be doing the load-balancing.

--
Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
Web caching appliances and support.
http://www.swelltech.com