Community discussions

MUM Europe 2020
 
wildbill442
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Topic Author
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:29 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Squid or Mirkotik?

Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:04 pm

We're looking to implement a transparent proxy and I'm wondering what would be the best option, Squid or Mikrotiks proxy? I most likely will end up testing both, but would like to hear some pros and cons of the two as I have some time before our new server gets here. :)
 
User avatar
butche
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 6:14 pm
Location: Missouri, USA
Contact:

Re: Squid or Mirkotik?

Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:11 am

We're looking to implement a transparent proxy and I'm wondering what would be the best option, Squid or Mikrotiks proxy? I most likely will end up testing both, but would like to hear some pros and cons of the two as I have some time before our new server gets here. :)
It really depends on what you are wanting to accomplish. I would really recommend putting up a squid proxy. The proxy in MT works, but there are a good number of options that you cannot get to that a properly operating cache will do for you. That's my vote anyway. (BTW, I've used both in the past, and don't really LIKE either option, but the squid box was a better option.)
--
Butch Evans
Mikrotik Certified Trainer
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
BLOG: blog.butchevans.com
http://store.wispgear.net/
 
wildbill442
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Topic Author
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:29 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:35 am

can you provide some more information, I'm not really looking for personal opinions, just what the limitations are, etc.. I'd like to implement a tranparent proxy just to Cache frequently visited web sites. As a good portion (30-60% on average) of our traffic is HTTP, I'd like to cut it down to make some room for other protocols. And make those frequently visited pages load faster.

http://www.msn.com is the default page for any IE browser and is like 200KB.. Caching commonly referenced pages can cut out a lot of that HTTP traffic going across our WAN link.

Just another way to increase our quality of service to the customer and to also help save us some bandwidth.

Also Reverse caching would be an added bonus to lighten the load on web servers, but that's not a huge concern as our webserver is a beast.
 
User avatar
butche
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 6:14 pm
Location: Missouri, USA
Contact:

Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:22 am

As I said...Squid is the best option for you. MOST (as in more than 1/2) of the options that you have with squid are not available to you in the MT. Administering a full blown cache is not an easy task, but if you are up to it, go with the Squid box.
--
Butch Evans
Mikrotik Certified Trainer
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
BLOG: blog.butchevans.com
http://store.wispgear.net/
 
ofasa
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:42 pm

Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:10 pm

I used to use squid now I use MT's built in Web Proxy. (Will be moving back to the external squid box because I need to use DansGuardian).

If you just want to cache web pages and don't need the extra tweaking (and don't have lots of time to spare) go with the MT Web Proxy.

They both work! With MT there's almost no configuration needed!
 
User avatar
macgaiver
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1723
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: Sol III, Sol system, Sector 001, Alpha Quadrant

Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:06 pm

I like the idea of all-in-one box. I use web-proxy-test package (/ip proxy). I have no need for something else.
With great knowledge comes great responsibility, because of ability to recognize id... incompetent people much faster.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 220 guests