Page 1 of 1

Squid or Mirkotik?

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:04 pm
by wildbill442
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. :)

Re: Squid or Mirkotik?

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:11 am
by butche
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.)

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:35 am
by wildbill442
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.

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:22 am
by butche
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.

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:10 pm
by ofasa
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!

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:06 pm
by macgaiver
I like the idea of all-in-one box. I use web-proxy-test package (/ip proxy). I have no need for something else.