Good points. I was thinking the same thing. By Open Source fear I meant that fear of using something now blessed by a major company you can read about on CNN Money. R --- On Thu, 7/17/08, Rhino <rhino@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Rhino <rhino@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Squid in the Enterpise > To: "Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães" <leolistas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "ML squid" <squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008, 5:16 PM > Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães wrote: > > > > > > Robert V. Coward escreveu: > >> I am running into the standard "Open > Source" fear at my local site. > >> Can anyone name some major companies that use > Squid. We are talking > >> enterprise or ISP here. We currently have about > 100,000 users with > >> heavy streaming video use. Some of the management > are afraid Squid > >> will not be able to handle the load. > >> Our planned deployment box is a 8-way, 16GB ram, > 1TB (6 disks I think) > >> server which will be running RedHat Enterprise > Linux. > >> > >> > > > > in my opinion 100k users are just too much to a > single machine, even > > if it's a 'super' machine. And let's > not think about machine load ... > > let's think on a machine crash of failure of some > kind. 100k users are > > enough users for you to start thinking on some > clustering of some kind. > > > > i agree with Richard Hubbell ..... 100k users are > just enough for you > > to look for some expert to analyze and build this > project for you. > > > > we're not talking of 100 or 1k users ... > we're talking of 100k. 100k > > users on a standard (not optimized) device/system > configuration will > > probably trash any cache solution and squid wont be an > exception. > > > > besides the items previously addressed (and should we > mention many of > the "commercial" caches use open solutions?), > you should bear in mind that for a cache to be truly > effective at > bandwidth conservation (if that is your goal) it > needs to be placed close to the users. So if you're > talking about an > ISP with 100k users, I doubt they all reside > on one or two LANs - and you'd do well to establish a > topology with > several caches servicing their own groups > of users. What you'll save in having to add additional > bandwidth > overall would surely recoup the costs of the > additional hardware, imho. > hth > -Ryan
