Re: Squid vs. NetCache

From: John Lauro <>
Date: Thu, 28 May 98 07:48:39 -0500

On Thu, 28 May 1998 14:23:41 +0800, WaiSun Chia wrote:

>Dear fellow squidsters,
>I've stumbled upon this while surfing, especially check out the 2 graphs
>depicting Max URLs per hour and Median Response time.
>Are they for real or just a lot of hot air? Any Squid gurus are familiar
>with the Harvest Benchmark?

It's true, netcache is faster then squid, but if you look closely the
second graph is unfair to squid....
First they determine where squid maxs out, and where netcache max out.
The they graph between that range for the second chart...

> "NetCache delivered significantly higher throughput
> and faster response time than Squid or other Unix based web caching
>commercial solutions,

Notice how they say Unix, so they can fail to mention Novell's
fastcache, which performs even better under these tests.

> as shown in comparisons below. This workload consisted of a data
>set with a size of
> 221MB, 15000 URLs and a cache hit rate of 30%."

Notice how they fail to mention server specs. Squid is just a little
more memory hunger the netcache, so if the machine is on the edge, you
would expect squid to do worse... Also, how many drives, etc...

>More details at:
Received on Thu May 28 1998 - 05:08:35 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:40:28 MST