You of course need to start looking at this by analysing what is actually going on with the boxes and the network layer. There's not much that can be suggested given the current information. That said, NetCache's -are- much more efficient for most workloads than Squid. Its just what happens when you sink $0 versus $LARGE into a product. Adrian On Fri, Oct 12, 2007, Tory M Blue wrote: > Trying to figure out how I can reduce connections, sitting around on > my Squid boxes. > > I'm still running with both Netcaches and a few Squid boxes and what > I'm seeing in my loadbalancer is that the Netcaches have 50% less > connections at any given time than the Squid boxes. Also the Netcache > (Netapp) is pushing more traffic, so what I'm gathering is that the > Netapp is taking in connections and releasing them faster than the > squid boxes. > > I'm wondering if A) how I can diagnose this B), is there Squid > specific settings to handle this (I don't really want to close an > active connection, but absolutely want a connection that has been left > by a client to go away). > > Not sure if I should be looking at kernel/network tweaks or something > in my Squid configuration. > > Packets Bits Packets Bits Current Max Total > 18.5M 21.5G 23.6M 172.0G 737 1.3K 1.2M Squid > 21.2M 26.8G 28.8M 199.2G 274 1.3K 1.2M NetCache > 21.6M 27.1G 29.5M 206.4G 249 1.3K 1.2M NetCache > 18.6M 21.6G 23.7M 172.5G 735 1.2K 1.2M Squid > > Shows that the Squid boxes even though the loadbalancer is handing > connections off in a round robin fashion, Squid twice the connection > count as the Netapps. > > What pertinent information would you need to throw an idea over? > > Thanks > Tory -- - Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial Squid Support - - $25/pm entry-level bandwidth-capped VPSes available in WA -
