Re: Squid vs. NetCache

From: Tom Minchin <>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 23:08:54 +1000 (EST)

> Hi,
> Network Appliance claims that their NetCache is superior to Squid in
> that it is more reliable, faster, has a better user interface and more
> built-in statistics, fully supports HTTP/1.1, and includes all of
> Squid's features (maybe I forgot some arguments). And it also runs
> under NT, but that's nothing I'd need.
I had a look at the documentation they have on the web and couldn't find
where they stated it was faster than Squid ("faster ... than any other proxy
on the market" - read commercial - I did find).

> I would be interested in real-live experience about NetCache. Does it
> really behave that much better as they want to make us believe? What
> are the drawbacks (other than not having the source code)?
Basically, you make your choice, you pay your money.

I haven't looked at NetCache for a long time now, when I tried to use it,
under evaluation, the temporary key didn't work and I left it for alpha 1.0

If you need the few additional features it offers, then take it. Squid, by
nature and origin, has a much faster development cycle, so it's pretty quick
to react to problems with fixes.
Received on Sat Jul 19 1997 - 06:10:57 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:35:48 MST