Re: [squid-users] Problem with Varnish and intercept Squid

From: Amos Jeffries <>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 03:41:29 +1300

On 4/12/2011 1:30 a.m., Nguyen Hai Nam wrote:
> Hi Amos,
> I mean the first error is from Squid debug screen.
> In my existing configuration, Squid is listening on two ports: 3128
> and 3129 intercept just like you said.
> I'm just wondering to combine Intercepting Varnish + Squid, because
> Varnish do cache contents faster (IMHO). Did you ever try/think about
> bring it together?
> I do highly appreciate your kind advices.
> Thanks,
> ~ Neddie

Varnish is an optimized for use as a reverse-proxy. Squid is a general
proxy. In particular Varnish excells in the area of tiny files from few
backends and CPU SMP concurrency from its threading. Whereas Squid
excells in medium or large files (100KB+) and supports a wider range of
object types cached. At least that was true in 2009 when the last
reliable benchmarks were done. Both have changed since then I'm sure. At
least Squid has gained SMP concurrency and far faster storage retrieval
of small objects.

Received on Sat Dec 03 2011 - 14:41:38 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Dec 03 2011 - 12:00:02 MST