Re: [squid-users] L4/L7 switch for caching

Hi Pablo

Thanks for the suggestion.
URLHASH would be a good idea for better hit ratio.

Someone told that, in some L7 switchs, some "abnormal" port 80 packets would be dropped (since it acts like a firewall) while the packets would be forwarded in L4 switchs.
However, the behavior of L7 switch causes some normal sites could be browsed.

Do you have similar experience?

--- On Wed, 7/16/08, Pablo García <malevo_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Pablo García <malevo_at_gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [squid-users] L4/L7 switch for caching
> To: "Ryan Raymond" <rray1080_at_yahoo.com>
> Cc: squid-users_at_squid-cache.org
> Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 2:46 AM
> You want to balance your squid cache farm, using a URLHASH
> algorithm,
> to increase the hit ratio, that would be L7.
>
> Regards, Pablo
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Ryan Raymond
> <rray1080_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Dear all
> >
> > I would setup a caching farm for my subscribers (more
> than 4K). Also, I expect a L4/L7 switch would be installed
> for http traffic forwarding and load balancing.
> >
> > Could anyone suggest which switch configuration
> (L4/L7) is better ?
> >
> > Thanks a lot
> > Ryan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Wed Jul 16 2008 - 03:32:59 MDT