[squid-users] Squid as forward proxy far slow than Shadowsocks

[Billy.Zheng (zw963)]

Thanks you very much for your reply. it help me a lot!
I will have a try to `ssl-bump' in recent days.

Although, i still have one question about squid.

if speed is the major reason which can not access twitter in my android, 
But, i can access twitter from my laptop firefox (proxy to squid with
local squid), and I can access google and some blocked website from my
android too. I

so, i want to ask, is there any unsuitable config exist, make my android
phone network access is blocked by china GFW(Great Fire Wall) when I
access some special website which not need too many band width. (e.g. facebook, twitter)

Thanks.

Amos Jeffries writes:

> On 23/02/2016 6:41 a.m., Billy.Zheng (zw963) wrote:
>> and connect to server with shadowssocks android app, the speed is
>> improve a lot, I can access almost any website as i did in my laptop ,
>> and more faster.
>> 
>> I love squid, so I want to know why those big difference between those
>> two software.
>
> The main difference is protocol type. You are comparing SOCKS protocol
> with HTTP.
>
> SOCKS has more in common with NAT. A simple mapping of "packets with
> certain IP:port (all) go to router X:y". Processing this is extremely
> fast as all it requires is swapping ~12 bytes in each packet to new
> values and leaving it to be delivered to the new location.
>
> Squid is actually parsing and processing the TLS and HTTP(S) messages
> inside each packet stream - which have to be queued and buffered to get
> enough packet data for each message (messages being bigger than
> packets). All that work slows the traffic down and takes up machine
> resources, which further slows down how much traffic can be processed
> per second.
>
> Which one you need to use depends on your requirements. If its just
> getting the traffic from A to B, then SOCKS is as good or better than
> Squid. Proper routing rules would be even better.
>
> If you need to manage traffic based on anything in the HTTP messages
> themselves. Then Squid is the better tool despite the speed differences.
>
> You will find the same tradeoff between fine grained control and speed
> with any networking software or protocols. Even between different Squid
> configurations. For example you might get faster traffic by moving from
> stunnel+Squid to a Squid with intercept, ssl-bump and "ssl_bump splice
> all" in the latest Squid-3.5 releases.
>
>
> Amos
>
> _______________________________________________
> squid-users mailing list
> squid-users at lists.squid-cache.org
> http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users

-- 
Geek, Rubyist, Emacser
Homepage: http://zw963.github.io