Re: [squid-users] Moving to squid from inktomi

On Thursday 27 June 2002 02:28 pm, you wrote:
> Back to the point, I am looking for a cheaper solution while trying to
> add redundancy. My overall goal is to hit 600 req/sec. using a minimum
> of two machines. My hardware budget is $7000. (The Inktomi appliance
> is supposedly capable of 600 req/sec in reverse proxy mode.)-

2 servers gets you nothing for redundancy, since neither server can handle
the load alone. You really need 3 servers, each able to handle 300
req/sec.

> So far, I am on this track for each server's hardware: Single 1.13Ghz
> PIII, 1GB RAM, 2x18GB 10K Ultra 160 HDs (1 for OS/logs, 1 for cache). I

If disk becomes your bottleneck, you're toast. Disk cache is king at
these speeds. Consider going with 1 or 2 IDE disks and sink the savings
into more RAM.

> can get 2 1650s with this config from Dell for ~$4,300 which is well
> under budget which is good. I am leaning towards FreeBSD. Based on old

Between Linux and FreeBSD, go with the one you know. The vfs and NIC
performance should be fine on either one. Many around here like ReiserFS
(meaning Linux), but I found it more practical to just wipe the cache
partition on reboot.

> These will be caching primarily images (70% of which are over 40K).
> Considering my low requirements for cache storage space and that I will
> be using squid in reverse mode does 600 req/sec seem feasible with the
> above scenario? If not, can hardware upgrades get me there (15K drives,
> dual proc, more RAM, etc)?

Faster drives and multiple procs will not help you here. More RAM and
faster procs will help, but you can probably hit 300 req/sec each as-is.
It depends on the size of the request of course -- I deal with a lot of
zips and mp3s, so my req rate is probably lower than your's will be.

        -- Brian
Received on Thu Jun 27 2002 - 14:25:22 MDT