We have got an ISP who had taken the 64K link from us.He had tried
netscape proxy , apachee(cache-module) and cern .Result is all worked well
when there isn't any load and when the load comes all dies.
We have suggested them to use squid.Within two days we will be having
their feedback.
I think the load is the major factor which decide the ability of the proxy
server.
regards.
arshad
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Barrie Hall wrote:
> I don't see a conflict between squid and apache. I provide local web services to a group of about 30 people on port 80 and also run squid on the same Linux box as a cache talking to a single parent over a 128k ISDN link to another squid run by our ISP..
> Works very well..
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> From: Miles Lott[SMTP:milos@insync.net]
> Sent: Saturday, 15 November 1997 15:34
> To: squid-users@nlanr.net
> Subject: Squid vs Apache
>
> Having run Squid for a couple of weeks, and now using Apache to serve a
> single document to the masses, I am wondering what is the advantage of Squid
> vs using Apache's caching feature? Is is performance or the ability to
> join a cache
> hierarchy? Granted it has been a relatively trouble-free operation. I am
> just
> curious as to your feelings or fact pointers. This is as relates to
> caching for a
> medium-sized corporate LAN using a tiny ISDN trickle...
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Nov 17 1997 - 18:14:51 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:37:39 MST