> >>Frankly I really don't know if htcp is better then ICP while > >>configuring > Elsen Marc wrote: > > HTCP provides better security and better cache hit predictions > > versus ICP. However, HTCP messages are larger and more complicated. > > So they impose slightly more network overhead. > >>sibling, all we want to achieve "sibling" and yes "proxy-only" would > >>be the best coz all of the caches servers are on the same > >>network/switch. > >> > >>I thinks there is some sorta lack of communication probably from my > >>side coz I'm not native ya ;) > >> > >>So what you suggest may I use ICP or HTCP protocol while configuring > >>cache_peer , sibling relationship b/w the cache servers. > > You need ICP or HTCP to use siblings in a fashionable manner. > > I.e. the ability for the cache 'client' to ask the sibling > > whether it has the object or not. > > Probably ICP will has a slighty more chance for 'false hits'. On 30.03 16:46, Askar wrote: > Thank you Elsen Marc for your time and patience. Now HTCP vs ICP kinda > clear to me According to: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=squid-users&m=108124487727348&w=2 there's currently no big advantage for HTCP in SQUID and ICP should be preferred. But, according to rfc2756, section 1.2 (mentioned on http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=squid-users&m=93959526116935&w=2), there may be some advantage, because of HTTP headers are transferred. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@xxxxxxxxxxx ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and into darkness bind them
