Re: Cacheflow vs. Squid

From: Stephen R. van den Berg <>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:32:42 +0200

Fraser Campbell wrote:

>track of both user requests and content changes and by sending refresh
>requests based on algorithms that calculate the probability that a refresh
>will be needed. CacheFlow says this technique can boost hit rate to as

>I would say that this prefetching of a page (while it may slightly
>increase response time) is going to use just as much bandwidth (possibly
>more). What does everyone think? Has anyone here used Cachflow? Sorry,

But if it is done at the quiet hours, it's bandwidth which usually is
cheaper, so it could be an advantage.
You can extend squid to use the same technique though by using a simple
tool that analyses the logfiles and prefetches the URLs using wget
or similar at low-traffic times.

           Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).
Gravity is running out!  Conserve gravity: walk with a light step, use tape,
magnets or glue instead of paperweights, avoid showers... take baths instead.
Received on Thu Jul 23 1998 - 12:35:57 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:41:14 MST