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

From: Gregory Maxwell <>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 18:52:16 -0400 (EDT)

You can do this with Linux and Squid.. It's called transparent proxing,
unfortuantly there is a rather BIG problem with this, The cache only sees
the IP and not the URL, so it severly reduces hit rate.. Some people on
this list use Transparent proxying, they can tell you how it works..

But, it does work, and no cisco router is required.. 24gigs is probably
required for any kind of good hitrate in this situation..

I really think this kind of transparent approach is half-assed, no one has
a problem setting up mailhosts, users can just cope and admins can block
port 80.

If you want transparency then someone should encourage the addition of
caches as a DNS field..

In a worst case situation you can send a ICP request to the network
brodcast address, port 3128. (Though this can be bad for security

BTW- Last time I looked Ciscos web page included some flat lies regarding
other programs.

`Cisco's Cache Engine is thread based' (True, given for ref)
`Cisco's Cache Engine uses a special OS with low context switch overhead'(true)
`..Cisco's Cache Engine is the only cache system which is able to overcome
expensive context switches when dealing with multiple requests' That is a
flat lie, squid is a single thread, so no switch.

On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Paquette, Trevor wrote:

> Cisco's Cache Director is a very interesting approach to Web
> caching.
> 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
> supported.
> (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 ?
> > --
> > Masaaki NABESHIMA
> > NTT Software Laboratories (Tokyo, Japan)
Received on Sat Sep 20 1997 - 17:01:34 MDT

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