On 23/09/2008, at 2:40 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
inc.com> wrote:
Overall, what do you want to use Squid for here; caching, access
control..?
Caching and plugins such as squidgard (does that qualify as access
control?)
If you want caching, realise that you're not going to see much
benefit from
such a resource-limited box, and indeed it may be more of a
bottleneck than
is worthwhile.
well, we are very constrained RAM wise, but we have a reasonable hard
drive quota *and* a horrible internet connection. Picture 200 kids
behind a dsl line, 50 kids behind a satellite link or 3G modem.
Hmm, way back when I administered a Squid with about 200 investment
bankers behind an ISDN line... sounds familiar :)
The main problem is going to be the RAM; having it for cache removes a
lot of the pressure on your disk, and most ISP caches with this kind
of workload get IO bound. The per-connection overhead isn't trivial,
either, when you've got a slow link, as users will tend to be
impatient and retry, surf with multiple windows, etc.
BTW, completely out of left field, have you seen this?
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~nataraja/papers/nsdr2008.pdf
There is a group of folks talking about adding SCTP support to squid
(there are already patches for apache and firefox); with that, you
could use SCTP over the lossy/low bandwidth hops to improve
performance. I think in your case it would require a server on the
other end of the link -- e.g., maybe a farm of HTTP/SCTP -> HTTP/TCP
gateways -- but it may be worth considering...
Cheers,
Granted, youtube isn't going to work but well-behaved cacheable
content (in http terms) can work well with a good proxy.
cheers,
martin
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
--
Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
