|
|
<- Previous Message | Next Message ->
Thread Index
[isp-caching] Re: CacheFlow caching engine Vs. Cisco Cache engine
Adam,
Were you running this in reverse proxy mode or forward/transparent? Also
how much memory do you have on your CF boxes, do they have a 10/100/1000
port on them? Sorry to ask so many quesitons you have peaked my interest.
Illyse
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Denenberg [mailto:adam@...Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:19 PM
To: isp-caching@isp-caching.com
Cc: isp-caching@isp-caching.com
Subject: [isp-caching] Re: CacheFlow caching engine Vs. Cisco Cache
engine
we have about 7 cacheflows deployed nationwide, but no Cisco gear. I
can give you my $.02 on Cacheflow since we have had them for some time
now. They are planning on releasing a major rev of their code , but
who knows when that will actually get delivered.
max simultaneous connections per cacheflow is 11,000. Not suer what
cisco is but use this number as a guide. Also keep in mind that if you
use a pair, and you do over 5500 connections sustained peak per
cacheflow, and one dies, you are probably in trouble.
performance is quite good. We push about 5000 connections during peak
time and about 8 Mbit or so outbound and the cacheflow runs calmly at
about 22% CPU. the limitation on these units are just pure connections.
Configuration is pretty easy, not the greatest, but easy enough. Very
Cisco like command line, but a few features are lacking, like to apply
filter rules you need to copy the whole ruleset to a text editor, add
your new rule, then paste it back in, instead of being able to add one
rule. CF does however give you the ability to load configs from a
central URL so if you have a central web server where you can store
configs you can load each of the cacheflows that way instead of making
the same change one at a time. You still have to "load" the new config
on each box, but saves the cut and paste part.
All the filters and forwarding definitions are all regular expressions
so you can get pretty granular with them. that part is quite good.
Reporting is virtually non-existent on these units. The only
semi-reports are aggregated hourly , daily and monthly reports that
dont offer anything too useful. I had to write a bunch of scripts to
parse the logfiles to get useful data.
hope this helps.
adam
On Sunday, July 13, 2003, at 05:50 AM, Mohd alomairy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are a big company that want to implement a caching
> solution for the Internet gateway to speed internet
> browsing and host our own web portal and application,
> current bandwidth is 5 Mbps and we will be scalling up
> to 10Mbs by next 18 months. If you had the chance to
> choose between CacheFlow (blue coat) and Cisco in
> order to build a caching system solution for the
> corporate Internet gateway, which vendor will you
> pick, and why?
> All Our networks are running cisco/Microsoft H/W & S/W
> (no unix systems)
> assume that you have no other choice.
>
> I'll highly appreciate any comments.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
>
- Replies
-
- [isp-caching] Re: CacheFlow caching engine Vs. Cisco Cache engine, Ryan Gallagher
- [isp-caching] Re: CacheFlow caching engine Vs. Cisco Cache engine, Adam Denenberg
- Replies
-
- [isp-caching] Re: CacheFlow caching engine Vs. Cisco Cache engine, Adam Denenberg
<- Previous Message | Next Message ->
Thread Index
|
|
