John Galt
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Oceanside, OR | Edge Caching?
Anyone use and/or have any comments on edge caching?
What do you use (hardware & software)?
Thanks!
--
A is A |
|
IntraLink
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-14
Utah Valley
| Web caching, DNS caching or what?
I think DNS caching is great. Usually gets you quicker responses.
I don't do web caching anymore. My pipe is huge enough to just go get the info as fast anyways and is one less thing to break.
I use Mikrotik for routing so both are already built in.
Otherwise a squid based cache server should work great with minimal hardware requirements. |
|
bito
Premium
join:2001-10-08
Atlanta, GA | Cobalt used to make a slick little web-cacher. Not sure if Sun phased that out or not.
Caleb |
|
Semaphore
Premium
join:2003-11-18
Arnprior On.
| reply to John Galt
Linux/UNIX with Squid for Web caching. You can transparently redirect all port 80 to the Webcache with a ACL on the router between the AP's and your FW. You could Alteon it too if you have a few buck and set up SLB between a web cache farm. A company called Rebel.com (that went outta business) made one of the best in the business - unfortunately their management was a little to loose with the cache (:D). Anyway that product was based on Squid and it rocks.
DNS - bind on OpenBSD. I wouldn't put the DNS on the same box as the Web cache, just because of performance.... maybe colocate on a Radius box. |
|
rwhalen
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Belleville, MI
| We currently have a transparent proxy using MikroTik (squid). I would advise against going with a web proxy. Several issues have come up with websites showing strange behavior, and it was the transparent webproxy that was causing the issue. FOr the little benefit it brings, it causes too many additional problems to worry about. |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to John Galt
We never looked hard into this, especially with the large number of dynamic sites out there which you don't really see a benefit for.
At this point with a $2800 6Mbps burstable to 45Mbps we don't really see the need to build a box, but if we did it'd be a squid proxy, the software's the right price (ie free) |
|
ponline
join:2004-03-04
presheva
| reply to rwhalen
said by rwhalen  :We currently have a transparent proxy using MikroTik (squid). I would advise against going with a web proxy. Several issues have come up with websites showing strange behavior, and it was the transparent webproxy that was causing the issue. FOr the little benefit it brings, it causes too many additional problems to worry about. What ver of MT are you using?
I am using transparent proxy feature (squid) on the MikroTik Box. I have never had a call from a client that he can't access a site, im running it for 3-4 month, and it saves me 2 GB of 10GB daily download (approximately). Thats a big help for WISP that are paying expensive bandwidth. |
|
Semaphore
Premium
join:2003-11-18
Arnprior On.
| reply to rwhalen
Really? The only ones that I saw were a problem were sites that routinely sent out of order packet streams - sometimes portions of the pages (if they were large enough) wouldn't load. Installing a bypass for the FQDN worked.... or turned off aggressive logging for that site (or even all sites if it doesn't matter to you) fixed it too - what type of issues did you see with it? |
|
jasonepowell
join:2002-08-01
Charles Town, WV
| reply to John Galt
For a while, we used Cisco Caching Engines, which were great, except that they wouldn't act as a transparent proxy for the outside world (IE, the IP of the customer was always the caching engines IP). They make newer engines that do have that feature, and if we had extra money in the budget, we'd have them at all our major distribution points. |
|
