RE: [squid-users] Squid versus Microsoft ISA

It seems that you have already made your decision and are going to go with
MS.
If it works for you fine.
Most of us have weighed the options and know the reasons why we use squid
and are happy with it.
Yes, MS will be around a while, but everyday it loses a bit more of it's
grip (..strangle hold).

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark A. Lewis [mailto:mark@siliconjunkie.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:13 PM
To: Henrik Nordstrom; Dave Augustus
Cc: squid-users@squid-cache.org
Subject: RE: [squid-users] Squid versus Microsoft ISA

 
> Because Squid is open source while ISA is not?

Certainly an advantage if you have the resources to do something with
that source or someone has already done it.

> Because Squid does not make you further dependent on Microsoft than
you already are?

Eh, I don't know that this is a real advantage. More opinion, and not
very subjective.

> Because Squid probably has better support channels where you actually
get a solution if you have a problem and not simply asked to reboot the
server?

Believe it or not, MS does not always answer with this. We deal with MS
for ISA issues on a daily basis and are not simply told to reboot the
server.

>Because by using Squid you are free to build the proxy solution you
want to have rather than what Microsoft thinks you should have?

Can you elaborate about what proxy solutions can be achieved with squid
that cannot be achieved with ISA? ISA supports hierarchys, peering and
every other configuration that Squid supports that I am aware of.

>Because you can get Squid for free no matter the size of your
organisation while ISA requires a license with a cost dependent on the
number of users you have?

Anyplace with a large MS presence can easily get site licensing for it,
only very small buyers go to cdw or such to buy it. Actaully, we don't
pay for ISA due to the size of our organization.

>Because Squid is more fun?
I'll agree with that one. But still not very subjective.

>Because you are interested in what Squid can provide?
What does it provide that ISA cannot?

>You can always start by trying Squid and if it is not what you was
looking for look into ISA. The only cost in trying is time as any
hardware invests etc can be reused for ISA if you should change your
mind.

Except that with ISA you can use a SMP box. The 2 products have vastly
different hardware requirements, if you buy/build a box for squid it
will be a 1 CPU box, which would not be a good choice for ISA.

The truth of the matter as I see it is that there are a few questions to
ask yourself.

1)If you need NTLM authentication and are not a *nix person you almost
certainly pull your hair out trying to get it to work on Squid. It
suffers from the same documentation vacuum that many open source
projects have. Squid itself is very well documented, but the NTLM piece
is woefully lacking. You have to decide if you are willing to undertake
this, and if you can maintain it.

2) ISA is more scalable in the sense that you can do more with one big
box. With a 4 CPU 900mhz 2GB ProLiant we get over 100gig of throughput a
day and tens of thousands of users and millions of requests. I have not
seen any recent stats on what Squid can do with a large single CPU box,
but I don't think it can approach that.

3) Do you require the accountability of real support channels or can you
use mailing-lists and Google? This is for both the OS and Squid. There
is commercial support available but I do not know what the costs are
compared to ISA.

4) There are no promises that Squid will be supported in the future. As
much as some may not like it, MS will be around for a while.

**********************************************************
This message was virus scanned at mail.siliconjunkie.net and
any known viruses were removed. For a current virus list
see http://www.siliconjunkie.net/antivirus/list.html
Received on Thu Dec 04 2003 - 16:33:07 MST