Re: [squid-users] 50 requests per second?

Yes, while it may not be necessary to use 2 load balanced boxes
for serving that many, it would be frowned upon in my environment
to have a single point of failure. Our network is focusing on a Cisco
6509 we have that will be doing the load-balancing.

Mark
------------------( Forwarded letter 1 follows )---------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:44:32 -0500
To: Mark.H.Price
Cc: squid-users@squid-cache.org
From: joe@swelltech.com
Sender: squid-users-return-1@gcs.alias
Subject: Re: [squid-users] 50 requests per second?

Load balancing isn't strictly necessary. We have a single box serving
200+ reqs/sec at peak periods (dialup ISP workload, so different than a
LAN, but still should make a huge difference in peak request rate).

It just takes a big box, ReiserFS, and Squid with aufs filesystems.

Mark.H.Price@AOC.STATE.NC.US wrote:
> I have successfully tested squid with transparent caching, and it is
> working well for about 100 users. I am going to be deploying squid for
> about 5000 users. I estimate that the proxy will need to easily handle
> 50 requests per second, and perhaps up to 80 or 100 during peak usage
> times.
>
> Does anyone have experience with a cache server serving with such
> a large user base?
>
> I am undecided whether I will be using a tree or mesh, but load balancing
> will be necessary. The platform of choice is RedHat Linux.
>
> thanks
>
> Mark

--
Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
Web caching appliances and support.
http://www.swelltech.com