Re: [SQU] Cobalt CacheRaq vs Traditional

From: Joel Jaeggli <>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:57:46 -0800 (PST)

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Joe Cooper wrote:
> It's easy to match or beat their performance on your
> own, because it seems they do little performance tweaking.

The performance of the cobalt boxes is quite similar to a pc with a
similar amount of ram and a single spindle (and comparable cpu)... on any
hand-built squid box at this point you're likely to have a lot more ram
(256MB or up) and a larger number of faster disks... (you can dial in the
amount of ram and the size of the single disk on the raq 4i)

They aren't bad boxes, and if the drop-in appliance computing model
appeals to you they're more than adequate. but if you're looking for a
scaleable high-performance box, I'd either build one yourself or look for
a vendor delivering that kinda of product...

> Merely the opinions of a competing Squid-based appliance vendor...
> Others may feel differently.
> Hubbard, Dan wrote:
> > Any advice / experience with the Cobalt (now Sun) CacheRaq box vs
> > running a traditional Squid Proxy on Intel w/Linux.
> >
> > From what I understand the CacheRaq is simply a MIPS box running Linux
> > and Squid with a web managment front end.
> >
> > Thanks
> --
> Joe Cooper <>
> Affordable Web Caching Proxy Appliances
> --
> To unsubscribe, see

Joel Jaeggli	
Academic User Services
     PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E
It is clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of
arms.  Karl Marx -- Introduction to the critique of Hegel's Philosophy of
the right, 1843.
To unsubscribe, see
Received on Thu Mar 08 2001 - 12:01:12 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:58:34 MST