Nyamul Hassan wrote:
Thanks Amos. The links were very insightful.
However, the 2500req/sec that ShuXin Zheng mentioned (and later achieved
3500req/sec) was in a reverse proxy scenario. Is that also the expected
limit for a regular forward proxy?
So far it seems somewhat lower the more varied the content. The
reverse-proxies are just good at finding the theoretical upper speed
limits with their more concentrated content.
Thats one major reason why I'm collecting general benchmarks. To find
out what seems to be the reasonable range for any given proxy mode in
real-world use.
I am also using regular commodity 4 x SATA 3.0 Gbps HDDs, compared to
SCSI by ShuXin. Given the speeds SATA can achieve these days, is there
any thumbrule between comparing them?
Not that I know of.
Amos
Regards
HASSAN
----- Original Message ----- From: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Nyamul Hassan" <mnhassan@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Squid Users"
<squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 08:56
Subject: Re: Large ACLs and TCP_OUTGOING_ADDRESS
Where could I find the "theoretical limits" publised by Adrian for 2.7?
Regards
HASSAN
Somewhere in squid-dev over the late 2007- early 2008 he pushed a graph
out comparing cacheboy and Squid-2.7 and Squid-2.HEAD.
All I can find right now is this thread:
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-dev/200701/0077.html
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-dev/200701/0083.html
And some old graphs on his cacheboy site:
http://www.cacheboy.net/polygraph/cacheboy_1.4.pre3_test2/one-page.html
looks like he has scraped out another 50rps since the early reports.
One indicates squid is capable of ~500 RPS on regular home hardware. And
the other that a very old version was capable of >3500 RPS on high-end
hardware in 2006.
Amos
--
Please be using
Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE5 or 3.0.STABLE10
Current Beta Squid 3.1.0.2
