Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 119

Thread: Caching proxy?

  1. #11
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stlscott View Post
    The Proxy Server feature is holding up several implementations for me. Currently, I have several hundred workstations configured for an existing firewall w/proxy (port 8080). Without this feature, I can't replace those firewalls with Untangle because I would have to touch all of those computers. No, they are not part of a domain so Group Policies can't be used. Further, when you have 30 or 40 users, the caching proxy filter truly reduces the bandwidth load, especially for "home pages" like MSN and CNN that load every time a user launches IE. When I put the last caching server in, I saw a 30% drop in bandwidth usage over prior usage for 4 months. Caching Proxy Servers work!
    I have the same setup as Stlscott, I serve out the internet via proxy on port 8080 as well.
    Other than that I must say THIS THINGS GREAT!

    Tarrith

  2. #12
    Untangle Ninja hescominsoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmorris View Post
    Glad you like it!

    We definitely think a web cacher would be cool.

    What we are trying to evaluate is the saving actually to be had by implementing one. Modern browsers do quite a bit a caching on a per user basis, so significant savings only happen on very large networks.

    Although if we could figure out a way to just plug in squid
    IME squid saves between 25%-60% on bandwidth depending on traffic patterns. This is irregardless of size. You already have a proxy with the webscanner..just route the final scanned data through squid for caching.(take a look at the copfilter project which uses ipcop). Just make sure you don't have squid cache in ram much or your ram requirements go through the roof. I have had to tweak several squid configs to reduce squid memory footprint which can be rather large.. I'm not a squid expert but if you would like i can post my tweaks that i normally use to reduce squid's memory footprint.

    This looks like an excellent product. I have 10 firewalls i admin..some heavily modded ipcop machines and some astaro. Get the caching proxy server in there and i can begin evaluating replacing ALL of those machines with your product.
    Last edited by hescominsoon; 09-01-2007 at 07:04 AM.

  3. #13
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Hi all!
    I am new to Untangle and still learning, but I also miss the proxy feature.
    Why not use something like advproxy?
    http://www.advproxy.net/
    I think this only works on IPCop and Smoothwall but it is an excellent feature.
    It works more like a file server then a web proxy, saving all windows update and more.
    I will attach a screen shot from my current Router software (endian) were you can see what programs it can save updates for.
    As you can see I am only using it to cache windows update.

  4. #14
    Untangle Ninja hescominsoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodrowbone View Post
    Hi all!
    I am new to Untangle and still learning, but I also miss the proxy feature.
    Why not use something like advproxy?
    http://www.advproxy.net/
    I think this only works on IPCop and Smoothwall but it is an excellent feature.
    It works more like a file server then a web proxy, saving all windows update and more.
    I will attach a screen shot from my current Router software (endian) were you can see what programs it can save updates for.
    As you can see I am only using it to cache windows update.
    adv requires squid..which untangle currently lacks..

  5. #15
    Untangler
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    31

    Default great idea

    I have been using untangle on a couple of small networks and I love it!!! But I agree a cache server would be great. Currently we use an Esoft Instagate EX2 and it is linux based I believe and it has a great web cache server built in that allows you to choose the cache size from 1-500mb. Helps a lot with updates and if we are having the whole class go to the same website!!!

    Hope this will happen someday!!

    Thanx for all the hard work!!!

  6. #16
    Untanglit
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmorris View Post
    What we are trying to evaluate is the saving actually to be had by implementing one. Modern browsers do quite a bit a caching on a per user basis, so significant savings only happen on very large networks.
    I have 30%-35% cache hits in a small law-consulting company with 30 computers in it (the statistics is based on a WinRoute report). I think this is quite large amount... so the cache should be really efficient.

    And one more thing to add. I think the cache efficiency should raise if there will be a good AD filter before it, because ADs usually loads dynamically and are incacheable. An example of such an AD filter is Mozilla's Adblock Plus plugin.

  7. #17
    Untangler MacMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    40

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by dmorris View Post
    Glad you like it!

    We definitely think a web cacher would be cool.

    What we are trying to evaluate is the saving actually to be had by implementing one. Modern browsers do quite a bit a caching on a per user basis, so significant savings only happen on very large networks.

    Although if we could figure out a way to just plug in squid
    Every day we download a multi-megabyte pattern file to each computer. See below.

    "Virus Pattern Files
    Official Pattern Release 5.397.00
    As of Jul 09, 2008, the latest pattern file number is 5.397.00.

    The Official Pattern Release or OPR is Trend Micro's latest compilation of patterns for identified viruses. It is guaranteed to have passed a series of critical tests to ensure that customers get optimum protection from the latest virus threats.

    lpt397.zip (Windows) 15.7MB"


    Plus there are Java updates, windows updates, acrobat updates, updates to Firefox, and open office...

    None of this benefits from the local browser cache!

  8. #18
    Untangler MacMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    40

    Talking http://bugzilla.untangle.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4015

    I have an enhancement request open on this.
    If you want to help pile on the votes for this feature go to
    http://bugzilla.untangle.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4015
    and vote for “Bug# 4015”

  9. #19
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    48

    Default i like it

    first, let me say what a good idea
    this would be.

    second, if you want a transparent proxy
    outside somewhere ut 5.2 can do this already. portforward?

    third, browsers DO know alot about caching, BUT
    mostly, that's part of what you have to clean-up (disk-defrag) in XP once month.

    i have another box (playing around) with opensuse linux 11
    at it does the proxying for me at at the moment.
    all my browsers have instruction to cache 0 MB. (less fragmentation and disk
    usage)

    fourthly? squid (at least) comes with a mechanism to
    do "clustering" ... meaning you can add other squid proxy
    boxes, it should ask before going for the source.

    this is "very" similar" like TOR works (of course not encrypted, yet)

    so maybe, -IF- you implement squid in UT, maybe have a page
    where people can share their proxy, to form a big-o cluster.
    benefit for privacy? anonymous

    thanks ...

  10. #20
    Master Untangler datajockeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hillsboro, OR
    Posts
    139

    Default

    +1 for Squid

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2