Re: Squid vs. NetCache

        Did anyone else also notice that for their "Maximum URLs per Hour"
that they have NetCache at 610000 and Squid at 250000, yet in their graph
just below that plots response times, it shows a graph at squid at 500000,
and again at 750000 URLs per hour. How did they obtain their data figures
for this rate of URLs per hour if their previous graph just stated that
Squid couldn't go that fast?? Sounds like some more explanation is in
order.

        Further, I'd like to know on what system, OS, network interface
speed and destination web servive was used to measure this. What was the
squid configuration. How much disk, how many spindles for each of the
NetCache and Squid boxes.

        Stew.

> Bet you ten bucks that they didn't have anyone who really knows how to
> tune squid for high-performance.
>
> D
>
>
> WaiSun Chia wrote:
> >
> > Dear fellow squidsters,
> > I've stumbled upon this while surfing, especially check out the 2 graphs
> > depicting Max URLs per hour and Median Response time.
> >
> > Are they for real or just a lot of hot air? Any Squid gurus are familiar
> > with the Harvest Benchmark?
> >
> > "NetCache delivered significantly higher throughput
> > and faster response time than Squid or other Unix based web caching
> > commercial solutions,
> > as shown in comparisons below. This workload consisted of a data
> > set with a size of
> > 221MB, 15000 URLs and a cache hit rate of 30%."
> >
> > More details at:
> > http://www.netapp.com/products/level3/netcache/webcache.html
> >
> > Wai Sun
>
> --
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.1
> GAT d- s++: a C++++$ UL++++B+++S+++C++H++U++V+++$ P+++$ L+++ E-
> W+++(--)$ N++ w++$>--- t+ 5++ X+() R+ tv b++++ DI+++ e- h-@
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
Received on Thu May 28 1998 - 22:03:56 MDT