Thanx for sharing the info. That means, it does not beat my "self-made" solution for squid/youtube regarding bandwidth-savings.But I assure you that you wont see more than %35 bandwidth savings from Cachemara.
DoushIf you have money to spend, get your self a Bluecoat Cacheflow.
If you are tight on budget, but still want to deploy something semi-professional go for Cachemara. But I assure you that you wont see more than %35 bandwidth savings from Cachemara. Dont beleive in anything the marketing says about Cachemara.
If you need more info, tell me so I can provide you.
He had an appliance with 24TB disk space using almost 15TB. Thunder was running with 7TB space using 5TB (a RAID arrange with 12 600GB 15k RPM SAS Disks, although thunder does better with separated disks).- >This client has 1.4Gbps traffic and almost 300Mbps is from youtube. It has 50% link saving from youtube traffic with ThunderCache 7.1. His words, not mine: "PeerApp gives 20 to 30% link saving on youtube traffic".<
First of all: Same amount of disk space ?
As I said already, I have about 30% bytehitrate with squid. Usind 2x2TB disks. So, how much disk space has the mentioned client ?
Actually it is not more difficult to cache. They just splited audio and video in 2 different files. Since Youtube changed for ranged requests in url more than a year ago, it needs a special "treatment". All we had to do was add this treatment to the audio files too, as they come fragmented as well now. And the data of 50% is from couple of weeks ago, before this change. When i told him about the change, and that almost all videos he had in his cache would not be hited anymore, he used this "moment" to upgrade to another machine, and... formatted the cache disks, hehe. It has 6 days running, about 400 thousand objects and is now at 29,64% link saving and rising .-> From when are your results ? youtube changed a few things just last month, which makes caching more difficult. My bytehitrate dropped to the 30% because of that. Yesterdays data.
I don't know how Squid does it actually. Does it answer the fragmented request, and make another request for the full video for when a client asks it again? Another Brazilian cache does this. Well, and if another client just does'nt ever watch this video again? Another question: You start watching a video, jumps to after the middle and watch to the end. If another client does the same, will squid deliver the cache of the last part without having the full video in cache? Thunder does. And not video anymore, how many clients do you think that uses a download accelerator while download some big file from the web, splitting it in 10 206 ranged responses? How does squid treat this? Thunder caches all 10 responses.- >So i realized that i have no information of any other cache system that fully handle HTTP 206 responses caching..<
-> small PLUS for TC. However, for yt-traffic this is not important any more, at least in my region. Besides, squid can cache the full video, and then serve the parts out of it.
Well, how many times do you skip an youtube ad when it plays before the video? Or how many times you stop watching a video you just opened and find out it's not what you want? Or how many times you cancel a download, or even lost connection or power?- >I suddenly noticed i neither have information of any other cache system that can "resume" cached downloads...<
(may be a )PLUS for TC. However, the practical advantage is questionable. Needs some real logs to be analyzed, to determine, how often this feature is really used.
As i told before, we don't rely on the url. So the ID of the video was not important from the beggining .- Honest answer, please: Is/was your actual TC affected by the change of yt (id of video not fix any more), or did it not affect yt ?
Actually, for 3k customers you would need a 6400 Threads plan, which costs $185 .Maybe your product is very good, but I never liked the idea of paying a monthly fee for using it.
For instance a Plan T15400 to serve about 3000 customers would cost monthly about $350. In 5 years you would end paying about the cost of a bluecoat cacheflow but without receiving any hardware.
So, any ranged request involves fetching the entire file, even if it will never be requested again. That's lame, hehe.As we are a bit off the mikrotik track here, I have to make it short:
> It has 6 days running, about 400 thousand objects and is now at 29,64% link saving and rising .<
My squid has only space for 200.000 objects; 26.6% bytehit yesterday.
> Does it answer the fragmented request, and make another request for the full video for when a client asks it again?<
No. Full video requested; as soon as necessary part available, tx to client. Next part will be extracted from incoming full video.
Valid for real range requests onyl, of course.
> You start watching a video, jumps to after the middle and watch to the end. If another client does the same, will squid deliver the cache of the last part without having the full video in cache?<
For real range requests: No.
However, as yt now uses the "self-made range requests", answer is YES.
>And not video anymore, how many clients do you think that uses a download accelerator while download some big file from the web, splitting it in 10 206 ranged responses? How does squid treat this?<
Just the same: cache whole file, but starts delivering as soon as first part available.
> As i told before, we don't rely on the url. So the ID of the video was not important from the beggining
Then that is the BIG PLUS. Possible to be done using a DB, for example, and quite some coding.
That's the reason, you deserve some $ for it
Good idea. Would like to continue the discussionIf you like, we could start a thread in http://www.overnix.com, which is our official support forum, there i can answer your doubts without being afraid of breaking rules here with MK guys (although i sure must had done it already ).
Done. Even that the entire topic itself has nothing to do with Mikrotik, here's the link:Good idea. Would like to continue the discussionIf you like, we could start a thread in http://www.overnix.com, which is our official support forum, there i can answer your doubts without being afraid of breaking rules here with MK guys (although i sure must had done it already ).
May be, you can copy a few posts from here, so it will be easy to be found. And no need to repeat.
I would say STAY AWAY from CACHEMARA.
Imagine you paid initial software license fee of 17000Euros + 2200Euros for up2date subscription for 12 months.
Than you used the product for 12 months and decide not to renew the license, or you dont want to use the Cacheserver for 6 months.
Than when the time comes that you want to use it again after 6 months, and renew the up2date subscription, they will charge you 12 months 2200Euros but will start the subscription on the first expiration date and make you loose 6 months. than after 6 months later, you will need to pay again the same amount.
So basically you dont have an option to stop. You need to pay every year the amount on time. If you decide not use the product and try to use it 15 months later, they will charge you 24 months of subscription fee 4400Euro, but provide it only for 9 Months !
So think twice getting into this fraud level support contract. Because no one should live the tragedy that we experienced with this company.
Share your info, what you got!Thanx for sharing the info. That means, it does not beat my "self-made" solution for squid/youtube regarding bandwidth-savings.But I assure you that you wont see more than %35 bandwidth savings from Cachemara.
Good to know
Cachemara does youtube aswell as thunder BUT check my previous post about licensing and up2date subscriptions please. If you wanna go into something like that than good luck to you.ThunderCache only does web caching.
It doesnt do youtube at all.
And Cachemara does torrents, web, and partly youtube too.
is that right ?