Web caching thoughts: MX250

[LFA-CMK]

We're exploring upgraded firewall options and looking at MX250's.  I see it supports web caching, but I'm curious if folks with larger pipes (1 Gigabit or more) are using the feature.  If so, are you seeing a performance improvement in any circumstance?

Thanks for your feedback.

Chris K.

[cmr]

@LFA-CMK it would be fairly unusual to run a web caching solution on a 1Gb+ pipe as unless you have a lot of frequently accessed static content, the time taken to look up static components of a page outweighs the time taken to just download it again.

Your mileage will vary of course!

[Bruce]

Exactly what @cmr said, but I'll add a little to that. A lot (like really a lot) of web traffic is encrypted or dynamically generated and so unable to be cached anyway. It may be that you get some benefit to it, but I'd say its unlikely, and very dependant on what's being downloaded. Also worth noting that the MX84 and MX100 had 1TB drives for caching, the MX250 and MX450 only have 128GB drives (although they are SSDs) - does that say anything?

[PhilipDAth]

https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/Firewall_and_Traffic_Shaping/SD-WAN_and_Traffic_Shaping#Web_cach... 

"This feature is recommended only for sites with limited bandwidth. Locations with over 20 Mbps bandwidth will likely not benefit from content caching."

[LFA-CMK]

Thanks to everyone who piped in.  It's what I figured from concept and documentation.  But I was hoping for community verification.  I appreciate you all taking a moment to do so.

Kind regards.

Chris K