on Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 04:05:32AM -0400, Jason Boxman (jasonb@edseek.com) wrote: > On Monday 10 September 2001 03:59 am, Ross Burton wrote: > > Hi, > > Ross: > > > Against all of the cries of "use Junkbuster" I went with ad-zap as it > > does exactly what I want - hooks into Squid (which I had already > > installed) and is small/fast/light, as is HTTP/1.1 compliant. > > Cool. I doubt much Squid would like my 486 33 16MB box though. > > Anyone try using Squid on such a system, or would it be an exercise in > futility? I'm running it on a P-200/96MB system (previously 64 MB). It's more than happy. This is a gw/firewall, runs IPF and IPNAT, rarely more than 6% CPU utilization. Squid may peg your box on occasion, but the real question is whether or not it's faster to pull stuff locally or to haul it over the net. In my case, slow and local is still a hell of a lot faster than 56kbps (max) ppp link. If your cache is a standalone/server and doesn't impact interactive performance on your workstation, so much the better. Cheers. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
Attachment:
pgpLKAvrkLrZF.pgp
Description: PGP signature