On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 08:13, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > Hi, > > I have a squid running on a machine, in front of two webservers, running > as a load-balancer and cache at the same time. It works really fine. Reverse Proxy? > However, I'm facing performance-problems (almost 100% cpu user from time > to time). Did you ever determine what the bottleneck was in the 1st place? > So I thought how performance can be improved. Okay, increasing > mem (currently 1GB) might help. But what other options are available? memory is one option but I doubt it will help unless you know why it's using 100% CPU. I'm certain you're not running any sort of antivirus/filtering app right? And you're only using the squid box as a load-balancer (reverse proxy) for the 2 webservers or are you also using it for internal web surfing cache? Can you determine if the load is caused by internal or external users? > > Onn the Fedora-mailinglist I found your message: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2004-November/msg04242.html > Were there eany replies to this (which I didn't notice)? Did you find > any good howto's? What steps did you take? I'm sorry but w/o internet access I don't know what message that is. Can you provide me with at least the subject and the approx date? (I have it archived in my laptop) > > Running Fedora FC3 on that machine. Are file descriptors still a problem? Not really. But the FC3 box which I did the install was for a home machine for only 3 users. The other install is on a FC2 box.It's working fine w/ 4096 descriptors. > What does this diskd do? I didn't find much information about it. Only: > http://www.squid-cache.org/Doc/FAQ/FAQ-22.html Diskd is just another cache filesystem like aufs. I can't tell you more than that. But diskd is supposed to function the best on *BSD systems. on Linux, aufs is the better choice. (AFAIK) > > Do the per-client-stats consume _that_ much power? Power? Not really, only system overheads due to the writes it makes to the disk. Besides that, depending on what you log, your logs may become PHAT quite quickly and you'll soon have another problem. :-D it actually depends on how much you're willing to sacrifice in terms of performance. I would believe that at times, it is useful esp when debugging problems. But other than that.... > > Do you know if ext3 or reiserfs is preferred (refering to performance) > for the cache-directories, or if there is maybe a way for optimised > performance using raw partitions (like Oracle does)? I initially though that reiserfs is the way to go for small files. But after reading the Oreilly book - "Squid = the Definitive Guide", I was surprised that ext3 actually performs better. Raw Partitions? I don't now about that. Maybe someone on the list would know?? > > > Your feedback would be _very_ much appreciated. > > > Kind regards, > Stefan -- Ow Mun Heng Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! Neuromancer 13:52:49 up 4:40, 5 users, load average: 0.42, 0.49, 0.22
