> Could a squid caching server accomplish the same sort of bandwidth savings, > maybe more due to the fact it is caching ALL the >content not just Akamai? I've never use used a web cahce always had the >bandwidth and the problems were not worth it
When we had Mikrotik redirecting to squid we saved about 20 - 30 percent overall bandwidth. That was on a 50mbps circuit. Not only that it sped up popular sites quite a bit. The downside, so many sites gave trouble it just was not worth it. To much tech support. To enable it manually just for select sites will likely not be worth the time. I really wish websites were all proxy friendly. We could save some bandwidth and improve end user experience. Video streaming could even use encrypted cached chunks to save bandwidth through a proxy cache. Disk space is cheap. Could easilly put together a box with 4+ TB drives. Matt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
