Re: [squid-users] CARP cache_peer hashing based on order found in config?

Nevermind! no-digest was the culprit, sending CD_PARENT_HIT requests and mussing up the Actual field.

:)
-j

----- Original Message ----
> From: john allspaw <jallspaw_at_yahoo.com>
> To: squid-users_at_squid-cache.org
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 11:24:04 AM
> Subject: [squid-users] CARP cache_peer hashing based on order found in config?
>
>
> We've got squid accelerator setups, and trying to get away from using layer7
> balancers for URL hashing, so we thought we'd use CARP.
> The basics are: a pool of 18 servers, balanced round-robin. We have CARP squid
> instances on port 80, a caching squid on 81.
>
> Our carp cache_peer lines look like:
> cache_peer 69.147.123.121 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache201
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.122 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache202
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.123 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache203
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.124 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache204
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.125 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache205
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.126 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache206
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.32 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache207
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.33 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache208
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.34 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache209
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.35 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache210
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.36 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache211
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.37 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache212
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.38 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache213
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.39 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache214
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.40 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache215
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.41 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache216
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.42 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache217
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
> cache_peer 69.147.123.43 parent 81 7 carp no-query name=photocache218
> monitorurl=/index.htm monitorinterval=60
>
> The carp instances get an equal balance from the load balancer, but we don't see
> an equal balance across the caching
> squid instances. Instead, we see a distribution that looks exactly like the
> sequence of hosts listed as cache_peers. For
> example, photocache201 gets the most requests, and it decreases down the line,
> and photocache218 gets the *least* requests.
>
> Is this expected? How can we get a real balance?
>
> The cache manager confirms what we're seeing:
>
> $squidclient -p 80 cache_object://127.0.0.1/carp
> HTTP/1.0 200 OK
> Server: squid/2.7.STABLE5
> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:52:21 GMT
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Expires: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:52:21 GMT
> X-Cache: MISS from photocache201.flickr
> X-Cache-Lookup: MISS from photocache201.flickr
> Via: 1.0 photocache201.flickr (squid/2.7.STABLE5)
> Connection: close
>
> Hostname Hash Multiplier Factor Actual
> apache_peer 0 0.000000 0.000000 0.007863
> photocache201 b7d71c0d 1.000000 0.055556 0.162550
> photocache202 e4836670 1.000000 0.055556 0.133271
> photocache203 114fb0d4 1.000000 0.055556 0.072396
> photocache204 3e1bfb37 1.000000 0.055556 0.076387
> photocache205 6ac8459a 1.000000 0.055556 0.064102
> photocache206 97948ffd 1.000000 0.055556 0.045340
> photocache207 c440da60 1.000000 0.055556 0.058199
> photocache208 f10d24c3 1.000000 0.055556 0.039018
> photocache209 1dd96f27 1.000000 0.055556 0.050036
> photocache210 b7d0820d 1.000000 0.055556 0.043762
> photocache211 e49ccc70 1.000000 0.055556 0.038504
> photocache212 114916d4 1.000000 0.055556 0.032422
> photocache213 3e156137 1.000000 0.055556 0.031728
> photocache214 6ac1ab9a 1.000000 0.055556 0.026673
> photocache215 978df5fd 1.000000 0.055556 0.028562
> photocache216 c45a4060 1.000000 0.055556 0.030378
> photocache217 f1068ac3 1.000000 0.055556 0.024259
> photocache218 1dd2d527 1.000000 0.055556 0.034549
>
> (the apache_peer is a local peer on each box for origin server healthchecks, it
> can be ignored)
>
> To confirm this, we even reversed the cache_peer lines; it results in
> photocache218 getting the most, photocache201 getting
> the least. :)
>
> What gives?
> --john

      
Received on Sat Dec 20 2008 - 00:00:45 MST