> -----Original Message----- > From: Pieterjan Heyse [mailto:pieterjan.heyse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 4:01 AM > To: squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [squid-users] Performance question > > > Hi folks, > > we are having some kind of performance problem here and I want to ask > you guys for advice. > > We are a school with 1200 students, and 200 pc's running squid + > Dansguardian as proxying service. The http requests tend to be slow at > peak moments and I am wondering if I could resolv this by changing the > setup. > > Currently we have a celeron 900 pc with 1 ATA disk acting as a proxy. > A nearby factory donated an old dual P2-300 server with 7 SCSI disks > 4GB each. I read that performance of squid increases with every disk > you add, so will the switch to this slower (cpu wise) system be > beneficial to us, ro should I stick to the celeron 900 and add some > more RAM ? Perhaps you should use both. Put your cache on the new (slower) server, and run DG on the old (faster) one. Squid by itself does not use much CPU, and is primarily limited by IO. On the other hand, since Squid does not take advantage of multiple CPUs DG would have its own processor on the new box. I haven't run it, so I don't know what it requires from the CPU. 200 clients does not sound like much of a load for one P2-300 server. > > The celeron has 256MB RAM, the donated server has 512MB RAM. > > Are there ways to benchmark squid in an easy way ? Not that I know of. Polygraph, while very informative, is not (in my opinion) easy. YMMV. In any case, running top and vmstat (again, assuming *nix), and looking at the output of the cachemgr.cgi should go a ways towards showing you where the bottle-neck is. > > Thanks, > > Pieterjan Heyse > > > ICT Coördintor KSGWL - Scheppersinstituut > Scheppersinstituut Wetteren > Cooppallaan 128 > 9230 Wetteren > Tel: 09 3692072 > Fax: 09 3661348 > mailto:pieterjan.heyse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Chris
