Back in the olden days of dialup, I used to get fantastic results from
our caching server. It was just a PIII machine with a whopping 640meg
of memory, but it did a good job. Page views were noticeably faster
when things were setup correctly.
When I was in a backbone pinch, I used a caching server fed by a cable
modem to offload a large percentage of my web surfing traffic. Worked
fine until Charter's upload degraded so bad that external webmail
(hotmail, yahoo) quit working. Got our fiber backbone installed at that
time and didn't need it after that, but it did the job in a pinch.
It is actually fairly simple to get a caching server running nowadays,
compared to what we used to have to go through. CentOS seems to have a
pretty decent squid caching server implementation in the install list
ready to run. Once you get your localnets in the ACL list and make a
few tweaks, it is off and running and ready for production. With
servers so cheap, I am thinking about building one with 2 or 4gig of
memory and setting it up to cache big objects (YouTube videos, Yahoo
videos, 5meg objects, etc) and forcing all of my residential customers
that are on private IP ranges to go through it. My connection is
unmetered, so I don't really save that much by doing it as far as
bandwidth consumption goes, but I'm up to 18-19meg at peak times on my
20 meg connection, so it might buy me a few months before I have to add
capacity.
Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
George Rogato wrote:
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
FYI, that is NOT how things worked with my Cobalt CacheRAQ. It was
amazing how quickly things snapped up on the page with it vs. without
it. Too bad it was an older unit and I could only use it by changing
the gateway addresses. And it had heat related lockup issues in the
summer.
I'd love to put another one in. It was money very well spent.
Funny how fast time goes by, now that you mentioned it, We had a
cacheRAQ as well.
You know Akamai is also an option. As I recall they require you to
have x number of subs and then send you their boxes to be set up on
your network. All free.
For your final solution on how do you allow subs to download more bits
and not raise your upstream cost, the solution is all pretty simple
with what you have in place right now.
You mentioned that Butch was your guy.
Seeing Butch is your guy, I am assuming you have a MT box at your noc.
Best solution is to do some bandwidth rules limiting your netowrk to
never go more than x megs and to make your users burst or fall back.
I would still consider a caching server to handle the videos just the
same. That ought to shave something.
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
