Re: Squid, Netscape Proxy & Harvest 3.0 (was Re: Squid & Netscape Proxy)

From: Ong Beng Hui <>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 09:57:28 +0800 (SST)

> If you are still in suspicious of the performance and stability of Squids
> as someone said in this list last year, how about Harvest Cached 3.0
> announced last weak?
> They said that Harvest Cached 3.0 could serve 3 million URLs/day
> on a single processor.

I am using Harvest v3.0 now and pretty happy with it except
that there are some bug to clear. Peter Danzig seems to have
identified the problem and hopefully, I will get a fix.

Now, I am often skeptical on those figure provided in my

I was told by Microsoft developer that a single MS proxy
can serve the whole Redmond campus. But during my initial
beta test, it was frozen after 30 mins. After some tuning
by MS developer, it can manage the load pretty well. It ended
up that there maximum thread pool is not big enough to
handle the number of connection in my environment.

The reason is such that low speed connection often choke
up the connection much more than high speed links. Most of
those test done by developers are usually conducted in a
high speed ethernet network or even FDDI. The time taken
to handle each connection is much lower. Network latency
is often insignificant.

It will be nice to know what is the environment of UK
National Cache why they find that Squid is a better choice.

Personally, I would recommend Squid as a very high performance
Proxy and if you have a little more cash, go for Harvest v3
that has added features.

Ong Beng Hui
...yet another day in an ISP business
...and they lived happily ever after
Received on Fri Jan 24 1997 - 18:03:53 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:34:10 MST