Hi,
My loadbalancing is handled very well by LVS. My caches are using
unicast ICP with the no-proxy option for their cache_peer's. I don't
think Carp or round robin anything would help me much. My concern is
whether or not my caches performance could suffer from forwarding
loops if they are all siblings of each other? Is it OK to ignore the
forwarding loop warnings in cache.log?
J
On Nov 6, 2007 7:29 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> John Moylan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have 4 Squid 2.6 reverse proxy servers sitting behind an LVS
> > loadbalancer with 1 public IP address. In order to improve the hit
> > rate all 4 servers are all peering with eachother using ICP.
> >
> >
> > squid1 -> sibling squid{2,3,4}
> > squid2 -> sibling squid{1,3,4}
> > squid3 -> sibling squid{1,2,4}
> > squid4 -> sibling squid{1,2,3}
> >
> > This works fine, apart from lots of warnings about forwarding loops in
> > the cache.log
> >
> > I would like to ensure that the configs are optimized for an up and
> > coming big traffic event.
> >
> > Can I disregard these forwarding loops and keep my squids in a flat
> > structure or should I break them up into parent sibling relationships.
> > Will the forwarding loop errors I am experiencing cause issues during
> > a quick surge in traffic?
> >
>
> The CARP peering algorithm has been specialy designed and added to cope
> efficiently with large arrays or clusters of squid.
>
> IFAIK it's as simple as adding the 'carp' option to your cache_peer
> lines in place of other such as round-robin.
>
> http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v2/2.6/cfgman/cache_peer.html
>
> Amos
>
