Bjoern Voigt wrote:
What do you think, is a Squid caching proxy server
still useful these days?
Depends on your usage & use case. For me, going back about 2000
log entries, I see (these are squid's mem and disk hits, not
mem: 5% (88/1563) 4% (1.1M/27M)
dsk: 9% (143/1563) 0% (156K/27M)
tot: 14% (231/1563) 4% (1.3M/27M)
Going back the whole day:
mem: 2% (433/14523) 4% (6.8M/146M)
dsk: 7% (1148/14523) 6% (9.4M/146M)
tot: 10% (1581/14523) 11% (16M/146M)
When I do more web-browsing, especially news sites, I get more
recent hits from memory. Bytes percentages take a real dive if
there is streaming or downloading going on.
Personally I used the Squid caching proxy for SOHO
SuSE/openSUSE last time some years ago. Internet bandwidth is still
limited and never enough. But I am unsure, if it's worth to setup Squid
caching proxy servers today.
I usually setup my browsers to use no local disk cache --
relying on squid, instead. If you only have 1 browser on 1 OS, then
maybe lower benefit.
I see a lot of factors, which make the acceleration
effect of the
caching proxy less effective:
* better Internet bandwidth for most users compared with former times
not really different here.
* busy caching proxy servers may slow down the
Well, if you are adding a bottle-neck, sure, but then what's the point.
Need to scale equipment and resources for the job.
* the share of dynamic content is high today
true, but depending on content, it may not really be dynamic.
* many content can't be cached, because it may
be somehow private
(HTTPS, authenticated, cookies ...)
* even static content is often marked as dynamic and so it can't be
cached (HTTPS, cookies, ...)
For the above --- can be controlled/managed if you have
a squid proxy -- especially one that does SSL interception -- that
lets you store ALOT more data, since there is alot of stuff that is
cacheable (not dynamic), that is now https protected. But if you
open the SSL layer, much becomes cacheable again. just have to be
sure to put in exceptions for *real* https sites (not the "please
protect me from seeing my own traffic but allow google to track it all
and give it to govs that want it) like finance and such.
* CDNs cause the problem, that each user gets copies
of the same
content from different hosts
??? Most should have similar URL's
* many requests (AJAX, REST ...) are pure dynamic
and can not be cached
many requests of that nature still load images and scripts
* users do not expect proxy servers anymore and some
browser apps (on
mobile devices) can not deal with proxies
Um... I usually think of a squid-proxy serving computers on a LAN, not
* client-side caches in browsers may became better
Nope. They still use redundant disk space (if you let them), and
have a limited memory cache that is flushed on restart (which you have
to do periodically due to crashes, hangs or resource leaks. Only thing
that allows multiple browsers on multiple logins on the same computer to
share content is squid -- let alone sharing content w/other browsers+users
on other computers.
I see Squid proxies or other proxies (caching or not)
still useful for
* other security related use-cases: proxy-only Internet access, ...
One sets up "proxy-only" access to force the use of a proxy -- not
the other way around.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner(a)opensuse.org