RE: Performance ..

Although we don't have any benchmarks to share, we've done some work with MS
Proxy and Squid. Performance is only part of the issue. When comparing any
products, there are other things to look at, such as scalability, support,
and feature set. In all areas except one (authentication), we found Squid
to be superior.

Part of the problem stems from the amount of traffic that a given PC-type
box can handle when running Windows NT. Since NT is such a resource hog
(i.e. currently using between 25-50% of the memory of my box with 128MB of
RAM) and its TCP stack isn't as developed or robust as some of those
available on other platforms, we've found that MS Proxy runs out of gas
quickly as usage increases. Also, in the version of MS Proxy that we
evaluated (I didn't do the test, so I don't have these numbers right now),
MS Proxy didn't seem to be able to handle mixed-direction chains, such as
chaining to another proxy server for Internet sites and fetching directly
internal sites.

Finally, and keep in mind that this is highly subjective and only my opinion
and not that of my employers, I have never gotten the level of support out
of _any_ commercial Customer Service agency as I've gotten out of the Squid
Users mailing list. If I've got problems, I'll get an answer here much
faster than if I'd tried to call customer support, especially if the answer
is that there's a bug in Squid and someone needs to go fix it.

Jon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Svensson [SMTP:martin@admin.mas.lu.se]
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 2:03 AM
> To: squid-users@ircache.net
> Subject: Performance ..
>
> Hi!
>
> Maybe it's a silly questions, however, have anyone compared Microsoft
> Proxy Server 2.0 with Squid 2.2Stable3? It would be fun to see how much
> faster Squid is (I guess it is faster)
>
> //Martin
>
> --
> Martin Svensson
> Network Engineer
> University Hospital of Malmoe
> Email: martin@admin.mas.lu.se
Received on Mon May 31 1999 - 06:58:33 MDT