2008/7/30 Marcos Dutra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/7/30 Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> (gah, why oh why won't gmail do what I said with my damned From:? Oh well..) > > Sorry :(
Hey, that isn't your fault. It just means I occasionally seem to misfile emails. Anyway.. >> 2008/7/30 Marcos Dutra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> cacheboy is "just" Squid-2.HEAD with a whole lot of code shuffling. >> Squid-2.HEAD should contain all of the 2.7 and 2.6 NTLM authentication >> stuff. > > It's cool, I will test cacheboy. Well, I'm all for cacheboy testing (as its mostly Squid-2.HEAD testing too!) but I'd be very surprised right now if there was a measurable performance difference between Squid-2.6/Squid-2.7 and Cacheboy in your environment. > Yeah, I running polygraph with NTLM for test performance, but I would > like more performance on this server. What metrics are you using for "more performance" ? >> The lookup speed may be related to authentication. Have you tried >> disabling authentication for a specific desktop machine and try >> browsing? > I don't it this yet, but the authentication I think is not a problem, > I will try this. Well, its worth ruling out authentication as a contributing factor. NTLM authentication using Samba isn't the fastest of things.. > One question, squid Vs cacheboy comparision which the better? At the present time? Mostly subjective. Cacheboy is "adrian's idea of where Squid-2 should've gone and should be going" ; the best way to compare Squid-(2, 3) and Cacheboy is to look at the developers, the development, the roadmap, and see which suits you better. There's no real performance or functionality reason to move over to Cacheboy but I won't say no to more users. I'd like the positive/negative feedback :) Adrian
