more squid

[Chewie <chewie@wookimus.net>]

NOTE: These were sent yesturday, but since the email server I use was
misconfigured and since Ben somehow lost my secondary email address on the list
server (chewie@nerp.net...hint hint...we set this up a while ago), it didn't go
through..


OK.  When I said that memory to squid was a non-issue, I was wrong.  Here's
what the Squid FAQ has to say about memory...

http://www.squid-cache.org/Doc/FAQ/FAQ-8.html#ss8.1

Basically, the idea is that you can configure many aspects of the memory
useage, but you cannot account for all of it.  The more harddrive cache you
have, the less stress you put on memory, thus the smaller profile.  It all
depends upon useage.  If you're generating a lot of traffic, increasing your
RAM available could help out.  Frankly, I don't see any reason to put less than
64MB on a server now-a-days.  If you're using an old 486 as your firewall, you
*could* put Squid on it, if you have at least 32MB of RAM.  Regardless, if all
your 486 is doing is firewalling, DHCP, DNS, SNMP, and Squid, you should be
fine on 32MB of RAM (just make sure you have 64 MB of swap).  A 500MB IDE disk
on a 486DX66 w/32MB of RAM and two NIC cards could easily run all of these
services, plus run a small httpd server, like boa or thttpd and MRTG for
statistics.

In fact, I'm setting up such a system for a friend of mine.  $32 for the
486DX50, 16MB RAM (thanks dieman), 250MB HD, 3C509B NIC, and a Rockwell 56K
V.90 modem (additional ~$70).  A grand total of ~$100 for a secure, firewall.
If they add another harddrive and 16MB stick of memory, I'll set it up to web
cache.

-- 
^chewie

PGP signature