Re: [squid-users] Squid in the Enterpise

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Robert V. Coward <rvc_pobox_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually caching is not the major reason for this device. They really just want a proxy (and don't ask why its part of the original contract they drew up). Anyway caching is not something I was going to be worrying about.
>
> R
>
>
> --- On Thu, 7/17/08, Adam Carter <Adam.Carter_at_optus.com.au> wrote:
>
>> From: Adam Carter <Adam.Carter_at_optus.com.au>
>> Subject: RE: [squid-users] Squid in the Enterpise
>> To: "ML squid" <squid-users_at_squid-cache.org>
>> Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008, 8:11 PM
>> > you should bear in mind that for a cache to be truly
>> effective at
>> > bandwidth conservation (if that is your goal) it
>> > needs to be placed close to the users.
>>
>> Maybe - it depends if you want to save bandwidth on your
>> LAN or WAN/Internet pipe. AFAIK most organisations are more
>> concerned about WAN utilisation since it's the expensive
>> bit, and therefore placing the caches just on the internal
>> side of your WAN can be a good solution.
>

I read the other day that Wikipedia has a 70 Squid server setup.
I can't find the original article.
See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/43868/Wikipedia-site-internals-workbook-2007
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-dev/200701/0075.html

Regards,

Brie A. Gordon
A Linux Chica

http://granite.sru.edu/~bag6849/index.html
Received on Fri Jul 18 2008 - 12:14:07 MDT