[squid-users] Squid vs Cisco Content Engines

How do squid caches compare with content engines from Cisco? I'm seeking
information about the ability of Squid/Linux web caches to handle the
caching requirements of a multi-site networked enterprise. Our proposed
topology is a hierarchical cache system, with high-end cache servers
at the core of the network and next to the internet gateway. Lower end
devices would serve the remote sites and some of the intermediate campus
locations with moderate traffic. For cost reasons we are considering
squid caching software on already purchased computers at these sites.

The network is Cisco-centric, so WCCPv2 is available and recommended
for redirecting port 80 traffic. Most cache implementations I've read
about redirect with iptables on Linux routers or WCCPv1 on Cisco routers.
I want the flexibility of using WCCPv2 if possible, allowing the use of
redundant WAN routers that both redirect to the cache(s), as well as the
ability to cache web traffic other than port 80. Cisco proposed WCCPv2 as
an internet draft standard in July 2000. Does this mean that no licensing
from Cisco is necessary for squid releases that support this protocol?

I don't have enough squid experience to estimate the cost and effort
of deploying and maintaining squid devices as compared to some of the
dedicated Cisco cache appliances. I'm wary of being trapped by the false
economy of near zero hardware/software costs if ongoing labor costs for
maintenance is a major issue.

Another concern is performance. Given comparable disk and memory,
is it reasonable to specify squid cache hardware that can handle
the 2000 simultaneous TCP connections advertised for one of the lower
performance CISCO content engines? Would any special linux kernel tuning
be neccessary?

TIA for any advice.

Tom

--
==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==
Thomas Benjamin
benjamin at cactus dot org