On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 13:17 -0400, William L. Maltby wrote: > 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. > ---- I like ipcop too - this new box I am going to use has 512MB RAM and at least 2 built-in NIC's but I am thinking of a heavy reliance upon squid and dansguardian and I am thinking that I will get a much more versatile firewall/proxy server using CentOS/squid/dansguardian than by using ipcop and using their squid and trying to bring in dansguardian into the mix - but I don't know...which is why I asked. I am using ipcop with a few clients and it works fine - even with lesser hardware but then, I am not exactly pushing it - which my previous experience with squid is that it functions better with more resources (RAM/HD) and toss in dansguardian, I think I have enough hardware to run. Craig