RE: [squid-users] Proxy Benchmarks

On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 02:17, Chris Robertson wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ow Mun Heng [mailto:Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com]
> > On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 03:10, Chris Robertson wrote:
> > Do you have any experience with load_balance??
>
> I have some. I have somewhere between 150 and 200 remote sites each with
> their own squid server that all have to pass traffic by a collection point
> at the central office.

I'm thinking more like a distributed collection point and not only 1
Central Location.

eg: X number of Remote server farms and X+1 number of squid servers.

> At the CO we have three Squid servers. Two are
> acting as load balancing peers (each running one squid process)
OK

> and the
> third is a parent for the two (running two Squid processes on a dual proc
> box)

Why 2 instances of Squid Processes?

> to give the world a single IP address that our traffic comes from.
Is this advisable? Maybe for a private establishment, but may not be so
for end-users (eg: ISP)

> If
> the parent dies, the two load balancers will surf direct.
Surf Direct? What do you mean? No Squid proxy at all? Doesn't the 2,
load balancers become the failover for the parent?

> It's not the most
> graceful solution, but it has been working for several months.
>
> Currently traffic is peaking about 100 requests/sec and 1.5MB/sec, with CPU
> usage under 50% on all processors (Intel Xeon 3.0GHz, 2GB RAM on the peers
> 4GB on the parent).

Wow. how big is your cache_dir then? 10MB per 1GB of space.. you have
what 200GB of Cache_dir on the peers?

Reiserfs on aufs?

What's your max_object_size?

Thanks

>
> Chris

--
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on D600 1.4Ghz 
Neuromancer 11:05:04 up 1:41, 6 users, 3.95, 2.64, 1.45