Re: [squid-users] Scalability in serving large ammount of concurrent requests

Roy M.:
> In http://highscalability.com/youtube-architecture , under "Serving
> Thumbnails", it said:
>
> ..
> - Used squid (reverse proxy) in front of Apache. This worked for a
> while, but as load increased performance eventually decreased. Went
> from 300 requests/second to 20.
> ..
>
> So does it mean squid is not suitable for serving large ammount of
> concurrent requests (as compare to apache)
>

We use Squid for reverse proxy for the popular webmail here, serving for
static resources like images/css/JS etc. Totally 24 squid boxes, each
has the concurrent connections more than 20,000. For small static
objects, Squid has much higher performance than Apache.

But as I once submitted a message on the list, Squid can't get high
traffic passed through. I never saw Squid box has the traffic flow to
reach 200Mbits/Sec. While in some cases lighttpd (epoll +
multi-processes) can get much higher traffic than Squid.

-- 
Jeff Pang
DingTong Technology
www.dtonenetworks.com