On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:05:22 -0300, Ronan Lucio <listas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Adrian, > > Adrian Chadd escreveu: >> Just another random datapoint - I've just deployed my Squid-2 >> derivative (which is at least as fast as Squid-2.HEAD) as a forward >> proxy on some current generation hardware. It's peaking at 700 >> requests/sec and ~120mbit a sec with a ~ 30% byte hit rate. >> >> A reverse proxy with a high hit rate should do quite a bit better than >> that. >> > > Could you tell what hardware do you use? > Reading Squid-Guide > (http://www.deckle.co.za/squid-users-guide/Installing_Squid) it says > Squid isn't CPU intensive, says a multiprocessor machines would not > increase speed dramatically. > > I know this docs is so old, but it talks about machines like a Pentium > 133 with 128 Mb RAM. Followed by "while receiving 7 TCP requests a second". If you have any sort of busy site, a single Squid can handle several hundred TCP requests per second. This naturally uses a lot more CPU than 7. FWIW when my squid 2.6GHz single-core box receives 2 TCP req/sec it also uses very minimal CPU for the squid process ;) > > So initially I was thinking in Dual QuadCore + 4Gb RAM. Now I'm thinking > in a Single QuadCore + 2Gb. > What do you think about that? The current Squid litany is a dual-core (one core for single Squid process, one for OS + etc). Quad-core CPUs are currently wasted on a single Squid instance. To make best use of them would be running 2-3 Squid instances. Which implies a very high throughput requirement. > > I think a throughput like yours would be great for me. > > Another question: How many disks do you use? > In other words: Do I need some special disk strategy to achieve such a > throughput? > > Thanks, > Ronan Amos
