On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Robert V. Coward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: Adam Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: RE: [squid-users] Squid in the Enterpise >> To: "ML squid" <[email protected]> >> 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
