> Amos Jeffries wrote: >>> Hi Guys, >>> >>> Wanted to double check I hadn't screwed up my config lines before >>> dropping a bug report.... >> >> Good choice. :-) >> >> round-robin == round-robin: each server trued in sequence until all have >> bee tried then repeats. No weighting there. >> >> IIRC Squid3.0 introduces weighted-round-robin for this purpose. >> Otherwise >> there is CARP in 2.6. >> >> Amos >> > > Hey Amos, > > Hmmm, so the only way for weighting cache_peers in 2.6 is with CARP? No, its just the most modern and one thats shown some promise in recent benchmarking earlier this year by a large-scale user. Thier exact results are buried back in the mailing list somewhere. There are other algorithms, with different properties that suite differing siutaions. > The config manual seems to suggest otherwise: > > "cache_peer 172.16.1.123 sibling 3129 5500 weight=2" > > Or am I assuming too much here? I could be getting the wrong end of the > stick; but it seemed like using a similar cache_peer entries to the > above, but with a couple having the weight=100 didn't seem to change the > way squid was choosing the cache_peer to use. The different algorithms all work their own way, with different inputs. round-robin you were trying is an algorithm that ignores weight. I think carp, closest-only, multicast-responder (weighted using ttl=) are weighted in 2.6. All the closest-* ones use live network loading instead of a fixed weight. I'm not sure which config manual you got that from. The Official Authoritative one does not include that text. http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v2/2.6/cfgman/cache_peer.html http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/3.0/cfgman/cache_peer.html Amos
