Henrik/Amos, Thanks for the replies. You're 100% correct in suggesting that we are using proxy-only. Thinking a little bit more now about the resilience we want to put in place and the impact of one of the cache servers going down I can see that running without proxy-only could be a great benefit to us. Thanks again for your help. James 2008/10/17 Amos Jeffries <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> Hi, >> >> I have two reverse proxy servers using each other as neighbours. The >> proxy servers are load balanced (using a "least connections" >> algorithm) by a Netscaler upstream of them. >> >> A small amount of URLs account for around 50% or so of the requests. >> >> At the moment there's some imbalance in the hit rates on the two >> caches because I brought up server A before server B and it's holding >> the majority of the objects which make that 50% of request traffic. >> >> I can see that clearing/expiring both caches should result in an equal >> hit rate between the two servers. >> >> Is this the only way of achieving this? I'm concerned now that if I >> was to add a third server "C" into the cache pool it'd have an even >> lower hit rate than on A or B. >> >> I spent some time searching but wasn't able to find "Squid >> administration for dummies" ;) >> > > Sounds like one of the expected side effects of sibling 'proxy-only' > setting. If squid were allowed to cache data received from their siblings > in one of these setups, the hits would balance out naturally. > > Amos > >
