Adrian Chadd disse na ultima mensagem: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007, Paul Cocker wrote: >> For the ignorant among us can you clarify the meaning of "devices"? > > Bluecoat. Higher end Cisco ACE appliances/blades. In the accelerator > space, > stuff like what became the Juniper DX can SLB and cache about double what > squid can in memory. > o really? how much would that be? do you have a number or is it just talk? > Just so you know, the Cisco Cache Engine stuff from about 8 years ago > still beats Squid for the most part. I remember seeing numbers of > ~ 2400 req/sec, to/from disk where appropriate, versus Squid's current > maximum throughput of about 1000. And this was done on Cisco's -then- > hardware - I think that test was what, dual PIII 800's or something? > They were certainly pulling about 4x the squid throughput for the same > CPU in earlier polygraphs. > I am not so sure if this 2400 req/sec wasn't per minute and also wasn't from cache but only incoming requests ... I pay you a beer or even two if you show me a "device" type pIII which can satisfy 2400 req from disk > I keep saying - all this stuff is documented and well-understood. > How to make fast network applications - well understood. How to have > network apps scale well under multiple CPUs - well understood, even better > by the Windows people. Cache filesystems - definitely well understood. > well, not only well-understood but also well-known a Ferrari seems to run faster than the famous john-doo-mobile - but also very well-known the price issue and even if well-documented it makes no sense at all comparing both squid does a pretty good job not only getting high hit rates but especially considering the price unfortunatly squid is not a multi-threaded application what by the way does not disable you running several instances as workaround unfortunatly again, diskd is kind of orfaned but certainly is _the_kind_of_choice_ for SMP machines, by design and still more when running several diskd processes per squid process again unfortunatly, people are told that squid is not SMP capable and that there is no advantage of using SMP machines for it so they configuring their machines to death on single dies with 1 meg or 2 and getting nothing out of it so where does it end??? Easy answer, squid is going to be a proxy for natting corporate networks or poor ISPs which do not have address space - *BUT NOT* as a caching machine anymore but fortunatly true that caching performance is in first place a matter of fast hardware that you can see and not only read common bla-bla I add a well-known mrtg graph of the hit rate of a dual-opteron sitting in front of a 4MB/s ISP POP and I get pretty much more hits as you told at the beginning on larger POPs - so I do not know where you get your squid's 1000 req limit from ... must be from your P-III goody ;) but then at the end the actual squid marketing is pretty bad, nobody talks caching but talks proxying, authenticating and acling, even the makers are not defending caching at all and appearently not friends of running squid as multi-instance application because any documentation about it is very poor and sad probably an answer to actual demands and so they go with the croud, bandwidth is almost everywhere very cheap so why people should spend their brains and bucks on caching technics. Unfortunatly my bandwidth is expensive and I am not interesting in proxying or and other feature so perhaps my situation and position is different and is not the same as elsewhere. Michel ... **************************************************** Tecnologia Internet Matik http://info.matik.com.br Sistemas Wireless para o Provedor Banda Larga Hospedagem e Email personalizado - e claro, no Brasil. ****************************************************
Attachment:
squid0-hit-day.png
Description: PNG image
