[CentOS] proxy server - ipcop vs CentOS

William L. Maltby BillsCentOS at triad.rr.com
Wed Aug 16 17:17:32 UTC 2006


On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 12:53 -0400, David Nalley wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: centos-bounces at centos.org on behalf of Craig White
> >Sent: Wed 8/16/2006 11:22 AM
> >To: CentOS mailing list
> >Subject: [CentOS] proxy server - ipcop vs CentOS
> > 
> >I have purchased a used Compaq DL360 which I was going to use as a proxy
> >server. Presently, we are using a cheap box with ipcop which is working
> >fine but it didn't have much RAM (64MB), etc.

IPCop itself doesn't need much. I have it installed on 3 machines,
"lowest" is an AMD 5x86 100MHz (equiv to a 486DX?) with 32MB. A DX/2
66MHz aptiva with 32MB and a 200MHz Pentium with 64MB (I know, so
wastful... just for now). The slowest (66MHz) with 3C509 half-duplex ISA
NICS gets 477K bytes/sec off my cable modem. The fastest gets me almost
700KB (670, 680, ... depending on source site).

But I don't run anything but IPCop on those units. I have no idea what
will happen if you start running other services on the firewall.

> >
> >This new box we will want to run squid and perhaps dansguardian for
> >filtering (this is a non-profit company) and I'm wondering if I should
> >just put ipcop on it or would it be smarter/better to install CentOS 4,
> >squid and I see Dag has dansguardian package which suggests that I might
> >get more and better options from this.
> >
> >Anyone have opinions on ipcop vs. CentOS

I like IPCop a lot. It's stable, supports several different
configurations and is priced right and runs on about anything.

> >
> >Craig
> <snip>

-- 
Bill
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060816/31d4afc2/attachment.sig>


More information about the CentOS mailing list