Re: Squid vs Apache

From: Bill Wichers <>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:48:54 -0500 (EST)

Well, judging from the list you posted to, I assume you are already
expecting the answers you will recieve ;-)

Squid is MUCH MUCH MUCH faster than the Apache cache. Apache's cache is
still in alpha/beta/testing if I remember right too. Squid is released and
well tested, and known to work. Also, Squid is specifically intended to
cache, while Apache does it as an add-on to its primary function of web

Joining a hierarchy (or creating one inside your company) is a big plus
for Squid too.

And since both are free, you can afford to expieriment :-)


On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Miles Lott wrote:

> Having run Squid for a couple of weeks, and now using Apache to serve a
> single document to the masses, I am wondering what is the advantage of Squid
> vs using Apache's caching feature? Is is performance or the ability to
> join a cache
> hierarchy? Granted it has been a relatively trouble-free operation. I am
> just
> curious as to your feelings or fact pointers. This is as relates to
> caching for a
> medium-sized corporate LAN using a tiny ISDN trickle...
Received on Sat Nov 15 1997 - 08:56:15 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:37:39 MST