Considering that the low-end netcache is about $30-40k I know I can build
a more redundant and reliable squid cache farm with a bigip or alteon
switch in front of 10 bsd or linux boxen. I think at that point I could
also exceed it's performance. With the cost of the higher-end netcache I
could put them in 2 seperate locations and use something like distributed
director or 3dns and have network redundancy as well, for the same cost as
a single netcache.
Netapp charges a lot for a good product - and I love their filers.
But for a web cache they charge way too much. Squid can be built on sooo
nicely. But if you're dealing with a company that doesn't have technical
resources then the netapp solutions are probably worth getting.
-Peter
On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 10:04:06AM +0800, fooler fools wrote:
> try the netappliance cache engine.. one of the designers is a former
> designer of harvest squid cache. they claimed that its nth times faster than
> the squid. :->
>
> fooler.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 09:25 PM
> Subject: WCCP ?
>
>
> >Hi folks,
> >
> >does anyone know about the status of Cisco's WCCP (Web Caching Control
> >Protocol) ?
> >Inktomi recently offered us a cache supporting WCCP.
> >Did they somehow buy the specs or did Cisco open them ?
> >Maybe even any ongoing squid development work out there ?
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Markus
--
Peter C. Norton Time comes into it. / Say it. Say it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | The Universe is made of stories,
http://spacey.static.inch.com | not of atoms.
|
Muriel Rukeyser "The Speed of Darkness"
