Re: Squid vs. Netscape Proxy

From: Joe Abley <>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:12:27 +1200 (NZST)

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote:

> At 4:26 PM -0400 4/20/98, Michael Pelletier wrote:
> >I think that the first question to ask would be whether the requirement
> >for three servers and load-balancing is simply to compensate for the
> >inadequacies of the Windows NT operating system platform -- or whether a
> >single hefty server running a UNIX-derived operating system could handle
> >the entire workload of three Windows NT systems.
> A single hefty UNIX system won't provide the redundancy of multiple NT
> systems even if it provides similar performance. Of course, the logical
> thing to do is to get multiple UNIX servers as opposed to a bunch of NT
> servers, but I'm not really sure that NT was specified at a previous point
> in this thread.

I think the original poster was talking about distributing three caches
(or cache clusters) in the wide area. A cluster of unix boxes running
squid in each city (with round-robin DNS set up to spread load across each
machine in the cluster) should work pretty well.

I didn't notice the "NT" word in the original post (but then again, I
didn't read it very well :)

Clearly any approach which avoids NT is a good one :)


Joe Abley <>      Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008
Network Architect, CLEAR Net            
Received on Mon Apr 20 1998 - 14:17:47 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:39:47 MST