Cisco Cache Director (Was RE: Does Squid beat the rest? )

From: Paquette, Trevor <>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:15:35 -0600

Cisco's Cache Director is a very interesting approach to Web

Note: you MUST be running CISCO routers in order to use the
Cache director.

Basically what happens is that the Cisco router redirects port
80 requests to the director (if it is up. If the director is
down, the request continues to the original destination). The
director then looks at it's own cache to see if it can satisfy
the request. If it can, it pulls it from it's cache, and
returns the reply. If not, it then sends the request to the
original destination and caches the reply while sending the
same reply to the requestor.

No "proxy server" IP/hostname needed to configure.

The only problems, in my opinion, is the smallest director
available starts with 24GB (yes GIGABYTE) of disk storage, and
allows 900 CONCURRENT sessions. Much to large for many folks.
You also must be running Cisco routers. ICP is also not

(I'd like to see performance stats on the Director vs. NetCache
vs. Squid.)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Masaaki NABESHIMA []
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 7:57 PM
> To: Stephane Bortzmeyer; Jason F
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Does Squid beat the rest?
> At 08:57 97/09/12 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
> > Squid is already the only survivor of the competition :-)
> But new products will be available. Especially the Cisco Cache Engine
> seems
> to be an excellent product. it does not use UNIX anymore. See
> <>. Also
> Inktomi's
> traffic serve will be available.
> Does anyone have any more information about them ?
> --
> NTT Software Laboratories (Tokyo, Japan)
Received on Fri Sep 19 1997 - 11:22:47 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:37:07 MST