Re: [squid-users] criticism against squid

That was my assessment as well: no object eviction?!?

So if your dataset it small enough, then varnish could
be as good as... a light webserver and a ramdisk. ;)
If you've got a huge amount of content, and want to
accelerate the hottest fraction, squid is still the best choice,
and can be tuned to resolve most of the issues the Varnish
authors cite. As features are added to Varnish, that might change.
We'll see. It's VCL language definately looks interesting.

-neil

On 8/29/07, john allspaw <jallspaw@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Varnish shows a lot of promise. I do believe that there's a good amount of trash talking in
> those comments, especially given that squid would for sure have been designed differently if
> it set out to be a fast accelerator, not a forward proxy with all of the bells and whistles.
>
> Flickr can't use Varnish in its current form, for example, because object eviction isn't yet a feature. :)
> Hence, we use squid. It's working just fine for us. So in that case, I'll take the "1980" design that works,
> versus the 2007 design that doesn't. :)
>
> -j
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: howard chen <howachen@gmail.com>
> To: squid-users@squid-cache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:23:09 AM
> Subject: [squid-users] criticism against squid
>
>
> hody,
>
> just found a new http accelerator, varnish, which criticize squid, e.g.
>
>
> Why bother with Varnish - why not use Squid?
>
> Varnish was written from the ground up to be a high performance
> caching reverse proxy. Squid is a forward proxy that can be configured
> as a reverse proxy. Besides - Squid is rather old and designed like
> computer programs where supposed to be designed in 1980. Please see
> ArchitectNotes for details.
>
>
> I am not familiar with the internal of squid in fact, anyone has any
> comments?
>
Received on Wed Aug 29 2007 - 17:58:23 MDT