Which do you prefer, squid server or webproxy??
personally i have mt webproxy but i ave a friend which has squid machine and it seems to me it runs better..
would like your opinion Normis
in MT, you have no advanced configuration of proxy, just simple proxying. if this is not enough - then setup one more linux machine with squid
Horses fo Corses.
On a large network I use squid, but on small netwok with limited resorsed MT cache is good.
beside we can do tuning for the squid what is the other advantages ? faster ? hit % better ?
My favorite is you can see under the hood 
eg how much cpu/mrm its using etc.
Regarding the squid vs mt it is faster, it supports wccp if you have cisco routers in the network, you can create a cache farm and it works very good.
Regards.
Faton
Quite strange topic ..
Mikrotik vs Squid.
From what i knew, Mikrotik build the proxy based on Squid also.
So you can only see the differences between both, only on the parameters.
Squid provide more and more advanced configurations, while Mikrotik.
It just simplify the complex configurations from Squid.
CMIIW
- Rio.Martin -
One of the reasons I like squid is that there are a lot of modules out there for it.
So I can add content filtering with Dans Guardian or even use it to handle Microsoft, Adobe, Symantec Updates.
All depends on the deployment…
no, mikrotik proxy is NOT based on squid or anything else.
Is there anyway of integrating thrid party moduls such as dansguardian with the new mikrotik web proxy?
I understand that all sorts of blocking and things can be done with it, but I would quite like to be able to filter traffic against some well known and possibly even custom black lists…
By the way the new mikrotik web proxy that I am using in 3.0 is as you advertise super fast, especially with my sata harddrive…
Normis: 
This is what i got from one of my client running 2.9 Mikrotik Webproxy.
Did telnet to its proxy and got the result like this:
HTTP/1.0 400 Bad Request
Server: squid/2.5.STABLE11
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:04:59 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 1177
Expires: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:04:59 GMT
X-Squid-Error: ERR_INVALID_REQ 0
X-Cache: MISS from proxy
Proxy-Connection: close
Normis: >
This is what i got from one of my client running 2.9 Mikrotik Webproxy.
Did telnet to its proxy and got the result like this:HTTP/1.0 400 Bad Request
Server: squid/2.5.STABLE11
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:04:59 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 1177
Expires: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:04:59 GMT
X-Squid-Error: ERR_INVALID_REQ 0
X-Cache: MISS from proxy
Proxy-Connection: close
> >
Well, if you look properly in the packages list for Mikrotik Ros 2.9 you will see that there is proxy and web-proxy. In other words there are TWO web proxy versions.
One of them is the mikrotik web proxy and the other one is the original squid based one. It looks like you are running the squid based one.
In Mikrotik ROS ver 3 the old squid based proxy has been dropped all together in favour of the Mikrotik one.
And so Normis is right the Mikrotik one is not based on anything else. I guess they should know. They wrote it…
Dudes,
The whole MT kernel is based on linux. So nothing to say…
proxy is NOT kernel. you should know that
proxy is NOT kernel. you should know that
Hey Kid,
Did I said proxy is kernel? I said the main kernel based on linux and in linux the proxy is squid you can just tune it for better for your OS. The MT web proxy in 2.9 is based on squid and I know MT team is building their own proxy in version 3. But my point is everything here are based on linus kernel, but I think MT OS web proxys idea came from linux squid.
Never underestimate any body, ever.
Linux idea came from UNIX, but Linux do not based on UNIX, it is written from scratch. “The MT web proxy in 2.9 is based on squid” - no it does not. ROS 2.9 web proxy is squid, but MT proxy in ROS 2.9 (webproxy-test package) is not squid.
So, Sweety, “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” (c) Okkam
Linux idea came from UNIX, but Linux do not based on UNIX, it is written from scratch. “The MT web proxy in 2.9 is based on squid” - no it does not. ROS 2.9 web proxy is squid, but MT proxy in ROS 2.9 (webproxy-test package) is not squid.
So, Sweety, “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” (c) Okkam
OH Sorry!? I didn’t know about you sir, Now I can see you are the boss here.???
Chuida mure kha.
Thanks n Peace
Confirmed on MT 3.0RC6
I did activate the Web Proxy, and did test the proxy connection.
Dunno different from squid or not, but got the similar result like Squid, except for the name.
(MikrotikHttpProxy)
Well i guess, the version 3 is different from 2.9
So lets get back to topic. Anyone already test this head to head scenario ?
MT Webproxy vs Squid ?
I have tested them head to head but not for performance, for features.
And like I said before I prefer squid for its modularity.
For speed reasons I think its a difficult test as MT is used in so many different ways by so many different people, on different hardware…
So the MT proxy on a router that has lots of mangle rules, and dynamic queues and so on which constitutes a real life scenario may be giving more processor cycles to those tasks that to proxy work.
A dedicated squid server is just that. dedicated.
Also we must consider the speed of the switching fabric between the router and the web proxy…
So, I like both of them, but I use them in different situations.
Chupaka is right. We used squid in older versions, but the new RouterOS proxy is made entirely by us, it is based on nothing else. It is faster, and over time we will add more features.