Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 12:46:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Mayo <mark@quickweb.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Netscape Proxy Server on FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960520123800.8117A-100000@scooter.quickweb.com> In-Reply-To: <31A07DB6.3649D859@fa.tdktca.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 20 May 1996, Alex Nash wrote: > Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > > > A derivative of Harvest is also available: > > > > > > http://www.nlanr.net/Squid/ > > > > Funny - someone just submitted a squid port. Guess we'll have to > > bring it in now. :-) > > :) Harvest is also available as a package in -current. > > Alex > I would be nice to see Squid packaged too! It's basically the continuation of the Harvest work (the non-commerical split..) and it works quite nicely! We have it setup in a hierarchical system, with a total of about 2 Gigs of cache. Works very well. So far it seems to be about 45% effective on cache hits. I also run the Netscape Proxy server on a 2.1R machine (v1.12 of NS) with no problems. A real no brainer to setup, and the performance seems very good. I'm not sure if the next version of the proxy is out for the BSD platform yet, but I heard it will be BSDI 2.x . Anyone do any testing on which proxy is better (perfomance and hit percentage wise)? The NS proxy we use caches about a Gig, with about 150 modem users hitting it. It usually avaerages 30% cache hit successes - which seems pretty decent for a single cache. I haven't tested, but the performance _Seems_ better than Squid... the two have very different forking properties.. Comments welcome! -Mark :%t$sig -- Oops, thought I was in vi.. ------------------------------------------- | Mark Mayo mark@quickweb.com | | C-Soft www.quickweb.com | -------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960520123800.8117A-100000>