Re: [squid-users] Apache Traffic Server vs Squid

From: Amos Jeffries <>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 18:57:13 +1300

On 13/10/2013 12:44 p.m., Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> Hey There,
> I am trying to understand a bit more.
> I would not try to compare 100Mph to 100Mph of a BMW to SUBARU...
> I do not recall any squid vs apache goals comparison.
> The PDF you mentioned is a vey nice ones.
> You can test squid and ATS yourself and understand the differences
> between the two..
> Since squid is bundled in many OS I know of and the language used to
> configure etc this is the first choics but..
> There is no need to lock your self on one specific software in general.
> I like ruby as a scripting and programming language and it's based on
> C while squid based on both C and C++..
> I cannot and wont say that ATS or squid is good or bad or other stuff
> but these:
> ...
> And Still I am not sure that there is a need to try to write articles
> here and there about squid dis and advantages.
> If you do have something in mind that you can compare be my guest..
> Regards,
> Eliezer
> On 10/11/2013 09:16 PM, Omid Kosari wrote:
>> I love squid and working with it for several years . For many years i
>> was
>> betting on squid at least in forwarding proxy cache .
>> But recently a new competitor comes to open source market
>> I did not even tested it but i am going to prepare myself to defend
>> squid
>> against ATS fan :)
>> His main sentence is Squid is like Apache http server (has many
>> features but
>> lazy) and ATS is like nginx (less features but lightweight) .
>> I reviewed ATS . in theorical world it has most of critical features
>> that i
>> need that even some commercial caches doesn't have like TPROXY . even it
>> supports long time squid feature request cacheurl .
>> Also they created a section in wiki to translate squid configuration
>> to ATS
>> config .
>> A simple search in google shows some articles about comparing "apache
>> traffic server vs squid" like :

Interesting, but this is 2 years old and as you may be aware things are
moving quickly here at Squid. The list on page 3 seems not to be correct
for Squid either. The one under threaded is wrong. We call Squid
single-threaded, and event-driven software that is normal, but that is
not completely true and has not been since around 2003 when threaded
storage handling was added. The "N" under multi-process has always been
wrong too, Squid has always been a 2+ process system. Then like all
comparisons, it is also omitting several major features like gateway
functionality between HTTP and other protocols which would show much
benefit to the competition.

The benchmarks look astounding in the numbers. But there is on mention
of how they were obtained etc, so as labeled "useless" is quite correct.
I've got a similar lab test showing Squid of that era at 300K req/sec
out-smoking those stats by miles, and with Squid capping out at 4
req/sec. Small details matter. YHBW.


Looks like you could almost cut-n-paste switch "ATS" for "Squid" in that
file. Those features are mostly networking stuff unrelated to the proxy.
FWIW: the page 59, 60, 61 major OS limitations and security
vulnerabilities have already been resolved in current Squid.

Slide 42 is particularly relevant for those people dropping Squid for
"the competition" based on difficulties getting these features working
with Squid. When the fundamental network topology or config is broken it
does not matter which proxy they use. Interception is *complicated* -
even when each small part is simple (ie the proxy part is just 2 flags
even on ATS).

>> Now i am trying to inform Squid community to create some comparisons and
>> articles in web to reinforcement squid .
>> I really love to see good informative comments .

As you part of the Squid community with an interest in these things we
look forward to your contribution ;-)

The biggest problem Squid has to deal with that ATS does not (yet), is
legacy installations. Admin are installing new relatively freshly built
ATS and comparing against old Squid versions or Squid configured with
nasty hacks intended to solve long obsolete browser/server problems.
Witness that even Lief marked Squid as not supporting multiple threads
in 2011 when cache store threading was added early 2000's, and not
allowing plugins when eCAP was added in 2008 and add-on helpers
supported since early 2000's as well (but helpers are not thought of as
"plugins" by some apparently).
   It is simply that until the recent renaissance with OS upgrades many
administrators have been dealing with Squid-2.x releases - and many
still are unfortunately. Not to mention the squid.conf hacks often
staying in place long after they are useless or harmful.

  /sorry if that sounds like a rant. I know those reading this will
mostly be the converted.

>> Thanks

No, thank You.

Received on Sun Oct 13 2013 - 05:57:27 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Oct 13 2013 - 12:00:05 MDT