trafficserver-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kingsley Foreman <>
Subject RE: Questions before researching a move from squid
Date Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:43:40 GMT
Thanks John, they are the 2 show stoppers anyway,

Do you know if there is much chance of the 206 behaviour changing eventually to allow smarter
retrieval, eg if it does a 206 lookup on a file that is cached as a full 200 to lookup part
of the file only rather then a whole new file?

-----Original Message-----
From: John Plevyak [] 
Sent: Saturday, 1 January 2011 4:28 AM
Subject: Re: Questions before researching a move from squid

I can answer 2 of these.

On 12/29/2010 5:16 PM, Kingsley Foreman wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > I've been using squid in a reverse proxy environment for some time now, and am pretty
unimpressed with its performance and lack of scalability and im looking at giving Traffic
Server a bit of a trial. But before I do that I need to know if it supports a couple of things
because if it doesn't then there is no point me testing. And yes some of these things are
annoying and silly but out of my control.
> >
> > 1. Large files i need the ability to cache files 8gb and up (it is for a remote
edge server and these happen every now and then).
> >
ATS 2.1+ can cache files up to the size of a partition (a disk/raid device) up to .5PB (500TB).

> > 2. range_offset_limit like setting, There is a client, that does 206 queries starting
at byte range 0 (and of course others), i need them to still cache.
You can cache range requests by setting:
proxy.cache.http.cache.range.lookup to 1.

Range requests are cached separately from whole documents currently,
so the range request must match to be found in the cache.

> >
> > 3. ICP based on lowest latency
> >
> > 4. nice but not required would also be esi
> >
> > I guess the question is is Traffic Server for me, and should I give it a decent
> >
> > Kingsley

View raw message