At 21:32 05/04/01 +0100, Mike Insch wrote:
>Even though it's a pain to set up if you've never worked with it before,
>I have been using Apache (1.3.14) at work as a cacheing proxy for
>months, the logging is great, I can control access to the internet via
>the built in access control etc, and it's a cinch to block sites (such
>as recruitment, warez, etc) that the company don't allow access to.
>
>How (apart from being easy to configure) does Squid compare? Are there
>any documented comparisons out there that might convince me to tear it
>all out, and use Squid instead maybe - bearing in mind that I'm already
>yanking the Apache access logs into a MySQL database weekly, and
>performing my own wierd and wonderful analysis on them with Perl!
AIR Squid logs use the same format - so no problem there. If you can tell
it about other caches, it will cooperate with them intelligently. You can
configure the amount of memory and disk space it uses. You can implement
access control using acls and authentication via an external program (I've
got a 20 line C program which uses PAM). You can also configure redirection
(and/or blocking) via an external program - there are some off the shelf
packages to do this, notably squidguard springs to mind, although it does
add some overhead to the configuration.
Although it operates as a single process server, I've found it to be very
stable.
I've not tried caching with Apache, but I can certainly vouch for squid!
Colin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk
http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------
