Squid cache vs browser cache?

drumsticksdrumsticks
Posted:
in Genius Bar edited January 2014
Hi, just wondering if anyone is running a squid server on their own machines just for personal use? That is, you are the ONLY user of this cache. Or more correctly, your machine is the only one using the cache (you could have multiple users on one machine).



I've read somewhere (sorry, can't remember where) that it might be a good idea to do this. I don't see any reason to though. How useful is it to run a squid cache when the browser (doesn't matter which) already has their own cache?



Thanks.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 4
    bnoyhtuawbbnoyhtuawb Posts: 456member
    The only benefit would be that all browsers (given you route them through your "private" proxy) would benefit from that cache. The downside would be that the brosers still would do additional caching for most content.



    I would not bother running SQUID locally, the ressource consumption would IMHO outweigh the potential benefit
  • Reply 2 of 4
    dobbydobby Posts: 797member
    I do not see how running a proxy cache server for your own use could be a benefit. Use your browsers cache settings for this.



    Dobby.
  • Reply 3 of 4
    drumsticksdrumsticks Posts: 315member
    Thanks for your replies. That was what I thought as well. I'm just trying to find the logic of running a private SQUID. If there's none, I shan't bother! Cheers!
  • Reply 4 of 4
    1337_5l4xx0r1337_5l4xx0r Posts: 1,558member
    I have run squid for my personal use on a powerbook under linux, some two-three years ago.



    To summarize: It's not worth it. The only value for squid would be a network with bazillions of users, running on a 24/7 machine. That way each browser/user would not load hotmail's elements (pictures, etc) every time.



    I used squid with privoxy... I recommend privoxy to save bandwidth over squid, as privoxy stops your machine from downloading ads.
Sign In or Register to comment.