From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 20 13:14:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D059416A4CE for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mss.tzo.com (mss.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.34.104.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5DF943D2F for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:14:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marty@mss.tzo.com) Received: by mss.tzo.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1F02923C89; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:14:44 -0400 (EDT) From: To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <20040420190053.5C92916A4D9@hub.freebsd.org> (freebsd-isp-request@freebsd.org) References: <20040420190053.5C92916A4D9@hub.freebsd.org> Message-Id: <20040420201444.1F02923C89@mss.tzo.com> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:14:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: NetCache equivalents X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 20:14:42 -0000 At one point in the distant past (3 years ago) I worked for Infolibria, now Certeon, which made the Dynacache. At the time, if you wanted decent performance you would not choose Squid. I don't think it was because Squid was terrible, just that Dynacache, and others, were optimized to run fast. These days 3 GHz processors and multi-gigabyte memory are cheap so an out of the box Squid implementation might do the trick. Marty Sasaki