Re: [squid-users] squid 3.4 is caching better than 2.7 ?

From: Amos Jeffries <>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 04:56:28 +1200

On 4/06/2014 4:26 a.m., Soporte Técnico wrote:
> Hi people, i had a few freebsd boxes with squid in some companies.
> I´m running in all squid 2.7 in transparent mode with ipfw fwd the port 80.
> I see in this last months the servers are saving less and less bandwidth.
> Checking squid configuration and cache directories all seems to be fine.
> (recreate squid cache directories, test with differents configurations
> cache_mem, max_object_size in memory, 32GB memory and 1 TB in 5 hard disks,
> etcetc., not big changes in bandwitdth saved...
> The questions are:
> There´s any advantage using squid 3.4 for caching?
> Is better squid 3.4 caching vs. 2.7 ?

3.4 has better HTTP/1.1 compliance. Meaning it is able to cache a lot
more by default (and with less user experience problems) than 2.7 could.

Whether that is better is a matter of opinion. Some people like caching
*less* and tuning for higher HIT ratio than caching everything and
pushig useful things out of limited storage space. Others aim to cache
the entire Internet.

On the other hand, what you are probably noticing is the growing trend
towards websites using SPDY and HTTPS. Those protocols are not cacheable
at all with 2.7. Squid-3 has SSL-bump feature to try and improve things
by caching some HTTPS. It also prevents SPDY support being advertized in
the TLS, which goes a long way towards making traffic cacheable again.

Received on Tue Jun 03 2014 - 16:56:40 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jun 03 2014 - 12:00:08 MDT