Re: [squid-users] room for improvement in my proxy architecture

I'm not doing it, but if I were, I'd take a long hard look at this -
http://www.ultramonkey.org/

Regards,
aaron.glenn

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:38:04 -0700, Gaylord Van Brocklin
<vanbrockling@saic.com> wrote:
> My current setup:
>
> - Internal Network (20,000+ nodes) --->
> - (2) Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon, 4GB Ram, 18GB SCSI OS Disk, 73GB SCSI Cache
> Disk, Squid on FreeBSD (Active/Passive setup using freevrrpd). --->
> - (2) Linux boxes running Trend Interscan Viruswall, also configured in
> an active/passive setup using cache_peer to point to the active box at
> the time --->
> - Internet - and we sustain roughly 10-15 Mb/s of traffic during the
> day.
>
> I have been tasked with replacing and re-architecting the Anti Virus
> servers using the newer Trend Product (the old one is going away).
>
> One problem that I have had in the past with load balancing between the
> two AV servers is that the destination web servers see the traffic
> coming from two different IP addresses so some session based websites
> (things like Cox Webmail) don't work properly.
>
> I would like to take advantage of both Squid boxes in a Load Balancing
> setup instead of having a hot standby box, and also use both AV boxes.
>
> How are you guys doing this?
> Thoughts?
>
> -gvb
>
>
Received on Tue Oct 26 2004 - 14:53:11 MDT