Re: Squid vs Apach

From: A.Saeed <>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:21:06 +0500 (PKT)

sorry for interruption in your discussions.

but Its quite strange for squid to compare it with Apachee.
They don't have any comparison.Squid is far much better than apachee.

On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Michael Pelletier wrote:

> 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...
> I started out proxying using the CERN proxy, then switched to Apache for
> performance reasons, then switched to Squid, again for performance
> reasons.
> This is not to say I have anything against the Apache proxy cache, I've
> contributed to its debugging, but the fact that Squid is a single process,
> and uses memory-based hot-object-caching, appealed to me, as did the cache
> manager interface. I've also put its heirarchy feature to very good use
> -- all my Internet traffic goes right past an upstream cache on its way
> out anyway, and peering with them improved my performance futher.
> -Mike Pelletier.
Received on Mon Nov 17 1997 - 09:30:09 MST

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