Re: Cacheflow vs. Squid

From: Dancer <>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:38:27 +1000

Fraser Campbell wrote:
> Someone has contacted me regarding a product called Cacheflow. He/they
> claim their product is vastly superior to Squid. I'd like to know if
> anyone here has any experience or comments with the product
> (
> The product apparently uses "active caching". This is it "by keeping
> 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
> high as 75%, compared with 30% to 40% in most cache systems."
> 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,
> if this is slightly off topic but I believe comparing alternative caching
> systems to be relevant.

Sounds like they're trading off bandwidth and spending it on speed.


Version: 3.1
GAT d- s++: a C++++$ UL++++B+++S+++C++H++U++V+++$ P+++$ L+++ E-
W+++(--)$ N++ w++$>--- t+ 5++ X+() R+ tv b++++ DI+++ e- h-@ 
Received on Mon Jul 27 1998 - 20:41:51 MDT

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