Varnish shows a lot of promise. I do believe that there's a good amount of trash talking in
those comments, especially given that squid would for sure have been designed differently if
it set out to be a fast accelerator, not a forward proxy with all of the bells and whistles.
Flickr can't use Varnish in its current form, for example, because object eviction isn't yet a feature. :)
Hence, we use squid. It's working just fine for us. So in that case, I'll take the "1980" design that works,
versus the 2007 design that doesn't. :)
-j
----- Original Message ----
From: howard chen <howachen@xxxxxxxxx>
To: squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:23:09 AM
Subject: criticism against squid
hody,
just found a new http accelerator, varnish, which criticize squid, e.g.
Why bother with Varnish - why not use Squid?
Varnish was written from the ground up to be a high performance
caching reverse proxy. Squid is a forward proxy that can be configured
as a reverse proxy. Besides - Squid is rather old and designed like
computer programs where supposed to be designed in 1980. Please see
ArchitectNotes for details.
I am not familiar with the internal of squid in fact, anyone has any
comments?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
