do u have any tools to perform these kind of test ? ..
can any one in the list give some advice on any such tools they use .. ?
it will be great help for other giving thier experience with various hardware
limits thy have !.. maybe help in making squid a better cache/proxy( which it
already is :)
On Thursday 27 June 2002 10:18 pm, Robin Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 01:08:00PM -0400, Robert Adkins wrote:
> > May I ask some specs on that one box that you are using? It would help
> > greatly to know the level of hardware required for such an install. It
> > might end up being more cost-effective and less of a headache if there is
> > system failure, to run two systems.
>
> While I can't speak for Joe's systems, we have servers capable of
> sustaining peak loads well in excess of 200 requests/second without
> noticeable loss of performance. In tests I've had them as high as 300/sec
> with significantly higher (but not unbearable) latency. But I've yet to be
> convinced that the current four servers will be enough to see us through
> the 2002/3 academic year if traffic continues to grow at the present
> rate...
>
> Our hardware is based around Dell Poweredge servers: single PIII CPU, 1.5
> or 2GB RAM, 7x 10000 or 15000 rpm cache drives giving about 100GB of cached
> data per server. Software is based around Redhat Linux with 2.4.x kernel
> and reiserfs cache partitions (mounted noatime,notail) and squid
> 2.4Stable6. I'll probably be investigating 2.5 over the summer while we've
> got the spare capacity for me to perform tests.
>
> Joe always seems to be recommending considerably more RAM for that amount
> of cache disk, but I guess this depends on the size of the average stored
> object. In our case this is around 20k - we get a lot of downloads into
> tens or even hundreds of megabytes.
Received on Fri Jun 28 2002 - 00:06:37 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:08:52 MST