> -----Original Message----- > From: jos houtman [mailto:jos@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 3:08 PM > To: squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: What is decent/good squid performance and > architecture > > > hello list, > > Iam running a website and have setup 3 squidservers as reverse proxy's > to handle the images on the website. > And before I try to tweak even more i am wondering what is considered > good performance in requests/min. > > some basic stats to get an idea: > - only images files are servers > - avarage size 40KB > - possible number of files somewhere between 10 and 15 million (and > growing). > - the variaty of files thats accessed? ... > I got these stats from a squid servers thats running for 2/3 days now. > Internal Data Structures: > 2024476 StoreEntries > 146737 StoreEntries with MemObjects > 146721 Hot Object Cache Items > 2000067 on-disk objects > > Is it safe to assume that the number of images actually accessed is > about 2million? > That is a fairly safe assumption (give or take a few thousand). I love this list. Some of the service requirements just make me gawk. 10-15 million images... > > on our dual xeon with 4GB ram sata disk servers i can get about 250 > hits/seconds > on our dual xeon 8 GB scsi server i can get about 550 hits/seconds > are these decent numbers? > i'am running aufs on the 8GB server, and diskd on the other servers. > does that contribute to the big difference or is it mainly the memory > and disk speed. > Given just the information above (and assuming that the OS and number of cache disks are the same between servers), I would guess that it's just a function of memory and disk speed (more objects cached in RAM, faster access to those not cached). In any case, http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200505/0974.html is an example of 700 hits per second. No hardware specifics in the email. There is a patch for squid to use epoll on linux that at least one person had a good experience with http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200504/0422.html. Here's an email from Kinkie (one of the Squid Devs if I'm not mistaken) describing 500 hits/sec on a Pentium IV 3.2GHz w/2GB RAM as "not really too bad." He also has a HowTo set up describing running multiple instances of Squid on a single box: http://squidwiki.kinkie.it/squidwiki/MultipleInstances. If you are running out of CPU on one processor (Squid doesn't take full advantage of Multi-CPU installations), this might be something to look into. > > I think that the variaty of files accessed by the clients is getting to > big (especially during peak hours) for the squid servers to cache > efficiently. And i am hoping that its possible to distribute the variaty > over the squid servers. So that during normal operations eachs squid > servers would only have to serve a third of the 2 million files. > Do you have some good idea's about how to achieve this? > Is there a way to have some kind of distribution based on the url? > Iam hoping this is possible without rewriting the webapplication > and so that a failure of 1 servers would go unnoticed for the public. > One method would be to set the cache servers up as cache-peers using the proxy-only option. The message at http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200506/0175.html is all about clustering squids for internet caching, but it does imply that ICP peering should work just fine up to 8 servers. If you want to limit what each squid caches based on hierarchy, a combination of urlpath_regex acls and the no_cache directive are capable. No promises on what that will do to performance. For more explicit suggestions it would help to know how your caches are set up currently (separate IPs w/RR DNS? Using a HW load balancer? Software cluster?). > Hoping to hear some good idea's. > Thanx in advance > > Jos Hope that helps, Chris
