GoogleGuy escreveu:
I have a small home LAN, with 3 people using the router PC as a working machine (read: 3 clients) and basically browsing the same sites.Plus a couple of laptops.
I'm the sysadmin of several networks running squid as transparent proxy. My squids were monitored through MRTG and now i'm using cacti/rrdtool, so i have several graphs of all of them, including REQUEST hit ratio and BYTE hit ratio. For me and seems for you too, the REQUEST hit ratio value is useless, we are worried with BYTE hit ratio, which really indicated our bandwidth saving.
What i have noticed, on the last 3-4 years, is that the BYTE hit ratio is getting lower each year. And that's somehow expectable. Several sites, including those who have stale content, are starting to use site generator systems, just like Wiki and other stuff. Not to count that sites are really going dynamic and setting the expire values correctly. All of these are making the BYTE hit ratio get lower on the last years, at least for me. We can't forget all the multemedia content, who usually dont get cached because of maximum_object_size. All these stuff contributes for the byte hit ratio being NOT too high.
I have several different networks, including those 'everybody surfs the same thing, ACL controlled' and the other side 'everybody surfs everything - ISPs'. In both cases, my bandwidth saving varies usually from 10 to 15%. That's the 60 minutes counter. The 1 and 5 minutes counter varies too much, i dont think they are good for taking those measures.
OK, somebody will say that 10-15% of a LOT of HTTP traffic is a LOT of saving. And indeed, it would be. But again, in my cases and certainly in yours too, HTTP is not the only internet traffic i have. So, saving 10-15% in squid doesnt mean i'm saving 10-15% on my internet connection. We still have DNS, SMTP/POP3/IMAP4, all those Instant Messaging systems and the bandwidth-hungry P2P things.
With all these numbers and maths, it seems to me that bandwidth saving, through squid, wouldnt allow me to have a smaller internet connection neither save me from upgrading it on the next month, for example.
But why using squid anyway ??? That's the point. At least for me, squid is VERY useful because of it's ACL control and delay_pool things, which allows me traffic-shape HTTP traffic using a VERY complete ACL system, which allows me to create rules for virtually anything i neeed until now. Logs which can be processed later are other GREAT thing i use a lot.
So, getting back to your situation ..... i'm from Brazil, all those squid i told are running in Brazil too. Bandwidth here is not cheap, probably as in your country. I would love to have bandwidth cheap as USA people has .... but unfortunely i don't and i'm sure you don't as well.
Anyway, with the actual internet situation (dynamic, multimedia, non-http traffic, etc), i still dont think that a 3-6 clients network, as it seems to be your case, will give you some interesting BYTE hit ratio. It can have some, it will sure did. But i really dont think that would make any difference for you or for any other 3-6 clients network.
And sorry for the huge email ... but i hope you understand my points. -- Atenciosamente / Sincerily, Leonardo Rodrigues Solutti Tecnologia http://www.solutti.com.br Minha armadilha de SPAM, NÃO mandem email gertrudes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx My SPAMTRAP, do not email it
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
