Re: Squid vs. NetCache

From: Robert Barta <>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 13:40:37 +0200

>>>Robert Kiessling said:
 --> 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.

Actually, they are offering two things:

  - NetCache, Peter Danzig's commercialized version. We have it in
    operation as accelerator for a medium busy server without any real
    problems. I guess, it is not suffering from featuritis like Squid
    sometime tends to.

  - A rather optimized NFS hardware

    The figures they purport are quite impressive. Outperforms a standard
    file system by a magnitude. Hotswap, RAID, snapshot horizons for
    backups and a "spacy" design of the chassis included. :-)

    Impressive also is it's price per GB.....but it might pay off if you
    consider bandwith costs here on the continent.

Finally, they announced that a proxy will run native on this NFS thingy.

 --> 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)?

They offer test installations.

Anyway, optimal performance is not the only strategical issue. Having
access to the source *is* important. If you are under a spam attack
you cannot wait until your software manufacturer reacts.


PS: This reminds me on the line "if you want to be happy for the rest of
    your life, never make a pretty woman your wife". A lot'a truth in there...
Received on Sun Jul 20 1997 - 04:51:45 MDT

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