on Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 08:24:14PM +0100, Pigeon (jah.pigeon@ukonline.co.uk) wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 09:18:22PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 06:14:12PM +0100, Pigeon wrote:
> > > In order to make it work, I didn't have to touch anything in squid's
> > > own config, just put appropriate gateway entries in the machines'
> > > /etc/network/interfaces and proxy entries in my browser's proxy config.
> >
> > Well, if you've got a beefy gateway, you could move the adzapping
> > squid there, then use iptables to make it a transparent proxy and save
> > yourself the trouble of having to point everything at the proxy.
>
> So, given that squid-on-a-firewall is apparently a negligible security
> risk, this is all about ease of configuration, rather than performance
> once configured? Cool, I know what I'm dealing with now.
>
> The "new" gateway is a 120MHz Pentium with 40MB RAM, which should just
> about handle squid/adzapper. Previously I was using a 600MHz/128MB
> box, which ended up having loads of other services on it to make good
> use of its capacity, hence the decision to move the security function
> to a separate box.
Incidentally, how much space are you dedicating to your Squid cache? I
know that this can't be assigned directly, so either the segment size,
or net use (du -s on cache) would be useful.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Windows Refund Day II: fight for your right to refund
http://www.windowsrefund.net/
Attachment:
pgpvDpa4zvWRA.pgp
Description: PGP signature