Re: some linux tuning

> 11. Caching only nameserver ran on squid host

I recall reading somewhere that it may not be a good Idea to run a DNS server
on the same box as Squid.
Is that true ?

JB
CWO

On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Clifton Royston wrote:
> Brian writes:
> > Just looking for some basic linux/squid tuning tips. What I have done so
> > far:
> >
> > Background on machine:
> >
> > PII450
> > 512MB SDRAM
> > DPT3334UW RAID controller doing RAID0 with 64MB disk cache
> > Linux 2.2.7ac4
> >
> > We have about 1300 dialup lines, so about 1300 people max could be going
> > thru box at a time. (usually its more like 400-500). Some clients on
> > ISDN/T1's/ethernet/etc.
>
> How much bandwidth to the 'net do you have? I think that's one of
> the critical factors in how much performance you need to get out of the
> cache. Better still is if you can estimate peak "down-stream"
> bandwidth to your users. Do you have monitoring software on your
> network so you could add up total bandwidth flows to each terminal
> server, each outgoing dedicated line, etc. to get a peak "incoming
> bandwidth" flow?
>
> Can't help on the Linux fs param tuning - that's still a bit alien to
> an old BSD bigot...
>
> [...]
> > 2. File descriptors increased to 8192 (2.2.7ac4)
> > 3. Hardware RAID0 with 64MB disk cache (dpt3334uw controller)
> > 4. 512MB memory.........cache_mem 160 MB (is that a good value? 1/3?)
> > 5. dns_children 10
> > 6. squid 2.2STABLE3
>
> These are similar guesses to what I've been making as to general
> hardware to maximize performance.
>
> > 7. ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/squid --enable-async-io
> > --disable-ident-lookups --enable-gnuregex
> > 8. Foundry ServerIron redirecting requests to squid
> > 9. cache_dir /usr/local/squid/cache 13500 16 256
> > Is that a little small? Do you think more space is needed?
>
> Gut level: maybe a little small, without doing the math. There's a
> paper by Peter Danzig (originally of the Harvest project, now at
> NetCache) on estimating a good cache size at
> <http://www.skycache.com/sizingcaches.pdf>
> I plan to do the math based on that, and go with what he says.
>
> > 10. Satellite cache prepopulation feed (www.skycache.com)
>
> Here's why I really wanted to reply:
>
> Are you actively using this now? Is it working well for you?
>
> We are on the brink of signing up with them; one of their tech guys
> is from Hawaii, formerly with one of our rival ISPs, and he's a very
> sharp guy, though he's mainly working on their Usenet service. My math
> says that even just pulling news off their service would save us money,
> and if we get a better cache hit rate, that's "pure gravy". But that's
> only if it really works consistently in practice. Any estimate on how
> much cache hits they're delivering to you, or how much bandwidth
> they're successfully offloading?
>
>
> > 11. Caching only nameserver ran on squid host
>
> Which nameserver?
>
> > Some things I have found necessary to keep user complaints down and deal
> > with non compliant sites: (are their any other tips?)
> >
> > quick_abort_min 0 KB
> > quick_abort_max 0 KB
> > quick_abort_pct 100
> > half_closed_clients off
> > uri_whitespace allow
>
> Not yet. Given the number of badly done web servers out there, I'm
> amazed how well Squid deals with them so far; but we haven't put it
> into full customer beta yet. We're very conservative about that kind
> of thing.
>
> -- Clifton
>
> --
> Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr@lava.net
> "An absolute monarch would be absolutely wise and good.
> But no man is strong enough to have no interest.
> Therefore the best king would be Pure Chance.
> It is Pure Chance that rules the Universe;
> therefore, and only therefore, life is good." - AC
Received on Sat Jun 26 1999 - 16:35:08 MDT