Dave Dykstra disse na ultima mensagem: >> >> I use another approach. I run three squids. using two on 127.0.0.2 and >> .3 >> which serve as parent. So the Ip address which contacts the remote sites >> is the IP address of the server. I get very high performance and the >> setup >> is easy without helper programs. > > So everything is filtered through one squid? I would think that would > be a bottleneck. Does it not actually cache anything itself, just pass > objects through with proxy-only? > well, the first is not caching but talks only to the clients and use the both other squids as parents in round-robin fashion. Both of them query each other as sibling proxy-only then > > We have a pair of machines for availability & scaling purposes and I > wanted them to be siblings so they wouldn't both have to contact the > origin server for the same object. The problem with cache_peer siblings > is that once an item is in a cache but expired, squid will no longer > contact its siblings. In my situation objects currently expire > frequently so having siblings was pretty much useless (as I like to my setup is working just fine for me but I do not use extra external servers anymore > >> I am curious if you can get higher throuput using sockets or tcp over >> loopbacks. > > What kind of throughput do you get with your arrangement? > what I meant here is the inter-squid throughput not the network performance sincerly I never did number-testing since this configuration gives considerable higher respond time and bandwidth reduction in comparism to single squid servers. The largest POP I have this running is a atm connection and there is 18-20mb/s http going in where the conventional squid setup could not handle it properly. Michel ... **************************************************** Datacenter Matik http://datacenter.matik.com.br E-Mail e Data Hosting Service para Profissionais. ****************************************************
