Re: [squid-users] Alteon + squid

> cache_peer the.notdotcom.box parent 3128 0 no-query connect-timeout=2
> proxy-only
>
> acl COM dstdomain .com
>
> cache_peer_access the.notdotcom.box deny COM
>
> prefer_direct off

We want the .com box to handle all .com traffic and only forward
the rest to nondotcom box. Shouldn't we use sibling instead of parent?

cache_peer the.notdotcom.box sibling 3128 0 proxy-only no-digest
no-query

Actually, to differentiate .com and !.com, we can also use
cache_peer_domain. To avoid reverse dnslookup, it will be better not to
use dstdomain, right?

Anyway, thanks for the idea... will give serious thought about this.

Rgds,
Wei Keong

On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> You probably would get a more cost efficient setup by using a 1.5
> layer setup, having the load balancer distribute the load on both
> your boxes and using internal request routing to reforward requests
> to the correct cache box if arriving at the other..
>
> squid.conf for your .com box would then look something like
>
>
> cache_peer the.notdotcom.box parent 3128 0 no-query connect-timeout=2
> proxy-only
>
> acl COM dstdomain .com
>
> cache_peer_access the.notdotcom.box deny COM
>
> prefer_direct off
>
>
> Regards
> Henrik
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 17 July 2002 09.46, Wei Keong wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > After trying for the past few days, seems like I've no luck with
> > the Alteon domain redirection/load balancing.
> >
> > Our current implementation is such that all Squid boxes (>10) are
> > load balanced by the Alteon. We are thinking of using Squid to
> > forward requests to separate Squid pool based on domain.
> >
> > | Alteon |
> >
> > / \
> >
> > |Squid| |Squid| layer 1
> > |
> > | \ / |
> > | \ / |
> > | / \ |
> > | / \ |
> > |
> > |Squid| |Squid| layer 2
> >
> > .com !.com
> >
> >
> > Essentially, the first layer Squid will only examine requests and
> > forward to second layer Squid. However, we are yet to test the load
> > and latency of deploying this architecture. And, ultimately, we
> > need to find out whether this will bring significant benefits (hit
> > rate).
> >
> > So, squid guru, any input on such an implementation?
> >
> >
> > Rgds,
> > Wei Keong
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Wei Keong wrote:
> > > Ya, have done testing based on the examples in the documentation.
> > > But, it doesn't seem to work.
> > >
> > > Understand that it will not affect Squid in anyway, just want to
> > > see if anyone has more info on Alteon.
> > >
> > > I am also looking into using CARP to do url load
> > > balancing/redirection (eg. separate .com and !.com). However, I
> > > am not sure if it will be bottle neck for request processing. Do
> > > you know of successful implementation of large-scale CARP?
> > > Besides, L4-7 switch and CARP, is there any way to do url load
> > > balancing/redirection?
> > >
> > > Rgds,
> > > Wei Keong
> > >
> > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> > > > The Alteon documentation should contain quite detailed
> > > > descriptions of how it works and how to set it up.
> > > >
> > > > Note: This does not really affect Squid in any manner. Is just
> > > > a method to get the requests to the correct Squid server.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Henrik
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday 14 July 2002 17.02, Wei Keong wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am working on url load balancing squid boxes using Alteon
> > > > > AceDirector. Unfortunately, there isn't much resources/docs
> > > > > available.
> > > > >
> > > > > Has anyone tried Alteon url load balancing before? Is there
> > > > > any forum/discussion group on this? Where can i find more
> > > > > info?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Wei Keong
>
Received on Wed Jul 17 2002 - 04:41:39 MDT