AW: [squid-users] squid acls vs. squidguard

AFAIK some time ago there was the same discussion in the squidguard list
which said:

Indeed squidguard (SG) handles large lists faster than squid. But there is
the overhead in the communication betwen squid and squidguard. Using SG you
should calculate times by:

 "squid gets an request" + "squid redirects the request to SG" + "SG working
time2 + "SG returns info to squid"

Hence for small lists you should not use squidguard.

regards
 
Werner Rost
GM-FIR - Netzwerk
 
ZF Boge Elastmetall GmbH
Friesdorfer Str. 175
53175 Bonn
 
Tel. +49 228 38 25 - 420
Fax +49 228 38 25 - 398
mailto:werner.rost@zfboge.com
www.zf.com/boge-elastmetall
 
 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Marc Elsen [mailto:marc.elsen@imec.be]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Mai 2003 14:27
> An: Yonah Russ
> Cc: squid-users@squid-cache.org
> Betreff: Re: [squid-users] squid acls vs. squidguard
>
>
>
>
> Yonah Russ wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I just finished building a system which uses out of band content
> > scanning to rate web pages and block them in real time via
> squid acls.
> > My question is what are the differences in performance
> between squid
> > acls and squidguard? If there is a difference, at what point does
> > performance of squid go down?
>
> Since squidguard uses a db mechanism it will be faster for
> very large lists. I do not have an idea about the 'pos.
> return of investment point' on the acl size curve however.
>
> M.
>
>
> > thanks
> > yonah
>
> --
>
> 'Love is truth without any future.
> (M.E. 1997)
>
Received on Fri May 23 2003 - 07:07:39 MDT