Re: RE: [SQU] ANNOUNCEMENT: Squid 2.3 STABLE 4 native port for NT update

----- Original Message -----
From: "Serassio Guido" <gserassio@asp.it>
To: <squid-users@ircache.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 6:48 AM
Subject: RE: RE: [SQU] ANNOUNCEMENT: Squid 2.3 STABLE 4 native port for NT update

> Hi,
>
> >Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:26:29 +1000
> >From: Tony Melia <Tony.Melia@downsmicro.com.au>
> >To: "Squid-Users (E-mail)" <squid-users@ircache.net>
> >Subject: RE: [SQU] ANNOUNCEMENT: Squid 2.3 STABLE 4 native port for NT upd
> > ate
> >Message-ID: <20D3153CA972D211A56C0008C74CE05D756B95@the-shadow.downsmicro.net>
> >Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="windows-1252"
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >
> >Has anybody done testing to see speed differences between squid for NT and
> >squid for Unix tunning on same HW?
> >
> >Regards,
> >TM
>
> I think that the Unix version performs better, because the code is not
> optmized for the Windows NT platform, and because the x86 Unix
> implementations (Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc.) have better performance
> than the Microsoft OS on the same HW.
>
> The question must be: "is Squid ported on Windows NT better than MS Proxy
> ?" ......
>
> Best Regards
>
> Guido Serassio

Well there is ongoing work to modularise squid, so that it becomes a core set of proxing logic, with plugin modules to handle
efficient communications/file storage/authentication. This should allow better tuning on the windows (NT) platform in the future. At
the moment though I agree with Guido 100%

Rob

--
To unsubscribe, see http://www.squid-cache.org/mailing-lists.html