On 2014-06-02 11:18, Brian Caouette wrote:
This one shows a really low hit rate:
http://bbs.dlois.com:8888/lightsquid/index.cgi
I thought Squid was better than this. Suggestions?
I'm only seeing 4 users one day, 8 the other, and a fairly low amount of
data transferred, so a low hit rate is expected.
Modern browsers do a fairly decent job of caching internally, so
typically with a single user, squid's hit rate will be pretty close to
0%, it's only once you have multiple users accessing the same sites that
you'll see any real degree of caching.
With modern sites moving toward HTTPS for everything including static
resources, proxies are likely to see lower hit rates than was typical
even a handful of years ago due to the fact that proxies can (usually)
only cache HTTP content, HTTPS content gets tunneled through the proxy.
Can anyone point me in the right direction? As much as I like pfSense it
and packages are really prone to glitches and over all bugs.
I don't disagree.
Packages don't get the same level of quality checking/testing that
pfSense itself does, and are often very complicated pieces of software
wrapped up under a set of "One size fits some" defaults, with only a
handful of the most common options directly exposed to the user.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
