Hi,
I upgraded my squid boxes from 3.1 series to 3.2 series. I noticed that
3.2 is not better then 3.1 while concerning with caching capabilities.
I checked for simple web site , which has jpg images and all. as web
site is standard and normal site. So squid must cache it contents. I
tried
On 25/10/2012 7:24 p.m., Ben wrote:
Hi,
I upgraded my squid boxes from 3.1 series to 3.2 series. I noticed
that 3.2 is not better then 3.1 while concerning with caching
capabilities.
I checked for simple web site , which has jpg images and all. as web
site is standard and normal site. So s
On 25-10-2012 14:49, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 25/10/2012 7:24 p.m., Ben wrote:
Hi,
I upgraded my squid boxes from 3.1 series to 3.2 series. I noticed
that 3.2 is not better then 3.1 while concerning with caching
capabilities.
I checked for simple web site , which has jpg images and all. as web
Hi Amos,
For my curiosity, I again checked same traffic with 3.1.19 and it is
working fantastic.
I really feel that, in 3.1.19 squid caching performance is superb while
considering 3.2.3.
I would request that once you verify caching mechanism of 3.2.3 with
3.1.19. I mean some changes are t
On 25/10/2012 11:21 p.m., Ben wrote:
On 25-10-2012 14:49, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 25/10/2012 7:24 p.m., Ben wrote:
Hi,
I upgraded my squid boxes from 3.1 series to 3.2 series. I noticed
that 3.2 is not better then 3.1 while concerning with caching
capabilities.
I checked for simple web site
On 26/10/2012 12:06 a.m., Ben wrote:
Hi Amos,
For my curiosity, I again checked same traffic with 3.1.19 and it is
working fantastic.
I really feel that, in 3.1.19 squid caching performance is superb
while considering 3.2.3.
I would request that once you verify caching mechanism of 3.2.3 w
On 10/25/2012 1:30 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 26/10/2012 12:06 a.m., Ben wrote:
Hi Amos,
For my curiosity, I again checked same traffic with 3.1.19 and it is
working fantastic.
I really feel that, in 3.1.19 squid caching performance is superb
while considering 3.2.3.
I would request that onc
