Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 119

Thread: Caching proxy?

  1. #21
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5

    Default

    I've only just found out about UT just a few days ago and now have v5.3 running on my home network. Not just 4-5 minutes after getting all of the racks setup - was I looking for squid. I run several CentOS machines and have Squid running in a few test networks right now. Amazingly easy to setup - and can see the benefits almost immediately. Hopefully - an optional RACK can be utilized in such a fashion that users wouldn't have to put in entries into their browsers, IE, Firefox, etc for a specific proxy server address. Having it transparent in the background would ease everyone's installation and likelihood of adaptation. I remember the old days in a large network with Novell's Border Mangler ...errr Border Manager....and setting up proxy addresses gets old after the first 2 machines.

    TIA

  2. #22
    Untangler
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    31

    Default vote please :)

    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”

  3. #23
    Untangler
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    31

    Default hopefully

    The Instagate EX2 was a great little box and it would let you choose the size of your transparent cache 0Mb - 500Mb. It is only like a 1.2ghz celeron and a 20gig HD.

    It helps saves so much bandwidth for AV updates and windows updates and if I have a class all going to the same webpage !!!!

    http://www.whystruggle.com/esoft/dow...EX2_052103.pdf

  4. #24
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3

    Default

    You could just put the proxy server behind the Untangle computer ? That should work fine, just set up a bog standard linux/bsd server and install squid to it and your sorted, or with a little more work you can make it transparent as well, but most large networks manually specify a proxy server and do not have a WAN facing default gateway for clients.

    I do however think caching should a package within untangles system, as it is especially useful on larger networks and networks that use the internet a lot

  5. #25
    Untangler
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    31

    Default I agree

    "I do however think caching should a package within untangles system, as it is especially useful on larger networks and networks that use the internet a lot"


    I agree it just would be a nice add for networks that use the internet a lot.

  6. #26
    Untangler goplaycheckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    50

    Default

    i would PAY for this feature!!!

  7. #27
    Untangle Ninja sky-knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    25,071

    Default

    Please don't mention Instagate in here again... I started to have waking nightmares and nearly went into convulsions... the proxy system in that thing was barely functional and didn't work with windows update AT ALL! The blasted thing was the source of constant pain and the customer that owned it just "loved" it. I'm just glad I don't work for them anymore.
    Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP
    NexgenAppliances.com
    Phone: 866-794-8879 x201
    Email: support@nexgenappliances.com

  8. #28
    Untangler
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    31

    Default instagate

    I still have four clients with Instagates and they all work flawlessly. When they die I would like to replace them with untanlge but for the last 4 years they have worked great!!!!

  9. #29
    mdh
    mdh is offline
    Untangle Ninja mdh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,786

    Default

    It shouldn't take too much creativity to fix that.

  10. #30
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    59

    Question

    This is my 1st post so hello to all... anyway: I was sourcing my hardware and ready to setup a customer with 6 pro systems when I ran across this post about no cache(Squid) DAMN... I rely on SQUID quite heavily so this is a problem for me. I have been using IPCop transparent proxy for years and get about a 40% hit ratio plus I use the adv proxy for updates... this is VERY useful to us.

    Until this feature is available am I correct that I can use IPCop behind UT?
    UT---->IPCop with UT gateway----->Clients with IPCop gateway

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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