>
> It's reading the FAQ that I supposed that in the worst case I need 400
> gigabytes of cache storage
I stated : round about one week of traffic generated by this
particular community.
> , and (about) 10 gigabyte of phys. mem. On the
> physical memory, I'm not so sure, because in the FAQ I read about 10 MB for
> every GB of disk cache storage, plus what is needed for cache_mem, plus tha
> RAM used by the OS to cache disk IO. From other sources I read 32MB per GB
> of disk storage.
Trust the FAQ (only).
I don't want to underestimate the need for physical RAM, so
> I'm taking the "worst" case. I just don't know, and consequently I wonder,
> if Linux+Squid scales well to this amount of RAM and disk.
>
> > - On average usage 12.000 users could lead to a 300reqs/sec range , on
> > average, which is rather high-end.
> > I would advise a low-end server with highest cpu-Ghz available.
> > In that case I would probably use 2 , with load balancing.
>
> Do you think that LVS would be a good choice for load balancing?
> And the servers (which can also be more than 2, if it is advisable) should
> form a cache array? This should give 2 benefits: if a client requests an
> object that is in the other server's cache, it is retrieved from there and
> not from the Internet; and the amount of cache storage should be reduced by
> roughly a factor of 2.
>
>
I have never uses loadbalancing so I can't advise , however
another interesting link I found w.r.t. load balancing software :
http://www.inlab.de/balanceng/
M.
