On Friday 23 May 2003 15.07, Werner.Rost@zfboge.com wrote:
> AFAIK some time ago there was the same discussion in the squidguard
> list which said:
>
> Indeed squidguard (SG) handles large lists faster than squid. But
> there is the overhead in the communication betwen squid and
> squidguard. Using SG you should calculate times by:
>
> "squid gets an request" + "squid redirects the request to SG" +
> "SG working time2 + "SG returns info to squid"
>
> Hence for small lists you should not use squidguard.
It should also be noted that the dst/dstdomain acl types in Squid is
very fast.
What Squid is lacking but SquidGuard has is mainly two things
a) A acl equivalent to the urllist specification of squidGuard
b) A configuration syntax which is manageable by hand when the rules
becomes complex
If you find that you need to use a very long urllist type
specification then squidGuard is a good choice. If you mostly have
domains and no path on the server then using the Squid acls is
better.
In both products very long (several hundred entries) regex based lists
should be avoided.
Regards
Henrik
-- Donations welcome if you consider my Free Squid support helpful. https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=hno%40squid-cache.org If you need commercial Squid support or cost effective Squid or firewall appliances please refer to MARA Systems AB, Sweden http://www.marasystems.com/, info@marasystems.comReceived on Fri May 23 2003 - 08:26:41 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:16:55 MST