Re: [squid-users] criticism against squid

Varnish shows a lot of promise. I do believe that there's a good amount of trash talking in those comments, especially given that squid would for sure have been designed differently if it set out to be a fast accelerator, not a forward proxy with all of the bells and whistles. Flickr can't use Varnish in its current form, for example, because object eviction isn't yet a feature. :) Hence, we use squid. It's working just fine for us. So in that case, I'll take the "1980" design that works, versus the 2007 design that doesn't. :) -j ----- Original Message ---- From: howard chen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:23:09 AM Subject: [squid-users] criticism against squid hody, just found a new http accelerator, varnish, which criticize squid, e.g. Why bother with Varnish - why not use Squid? Varnish was written from the ground up to be a high performance caching reverse proxy. Squid is a forward proxy that can be configured as a reverse proxy. Besides - Squid is rather old and designed like computer programs where supposed to be designed in 1980. Please see ArchitectNotes for details. I am not familiar with the internal of squid in fact, anyone has any comments? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
Received on Wed Aug 29 2007 - 17:35:54 MDT