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

So your single point of failure is a Cisco 6509? :)

Aaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark.H.Price@AOC.STATE.NC.US
> [mailto:Mark.H.Price@AOC.STATE.NC.US]
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:18 AM
> To: joe@swelltech.com
> Cc: squid-users@squid-cache.org
> Subject: 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
>
Received on Fri Jun 21 2002 - 15:50:54 MDT