|
|
<- Previous Message | Next Message ->
Thread Index
[isp-caching] Re: CacheFlow caching engine Vs. Cisco Cache engine
reverse proxy. DNS resolves to the address the cacheflow listens on, and
then the cacheflow fetches requests internally from a pool of servers for
content it does not have in cache.
We have 2 fibre gigE interfaces on every cacheflow with 4Gb of RAM. we
serve about 92% of traffic from memory and the units push in the area of
10Mb each.
adam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Illyse" <illyse@...>
To: <isp-caching@isp-caching.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 5:56 PM
Subject: [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, Illyse
<- Previous Message | Next Message ->
Thread Index
|
|
