I know about coss. it's great. but i have squid 3.1 and i think it's unstable in 3.x version. that's correct? On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Drunkard Zhang <gongfan193@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2011/1/8 Mohsen Saeedi <mohsen.saeedi@xxxxxxxxx>: >> and now which filesystem has better performance. aufs or diskd? on the >> SAS hdd for example. > > Neither of them, we are using coss on SATA. And coss on SSD is under > testing, looks good still. > >> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Drunkard Zhang <gongfan193@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> 2011/1/7 Amos Jeffries <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> > On 07/01/11 19:08, Drunkard Zhang wrote: >>> >> >>> >> In order to get squid server 400M+ traffic, I did these: >>> >> 1. Memory only >>> >> IO bottleneck is too hard to avoid at high traffic, so I did not use >>> >> harddisk, use only memory for HTTP cache. 32GB or 64GB memory per box >>> >> works good. >>> > >>> > NP: The problem in squid-2 is large objects in memory. Though the more >>> > objects you have cached the slower the index lookups (very, very minor >>> > impact). >>> > >>> >>> With 6-8GB memory, there's about 320K objects per instance, so no >>> significant delay would yield. >>> >>> >> >>> >> 2. Disable useless acl >>> >> I did not use any acl, even default acls: >>> >> acl SSL_ports port 443 >>> >> acl Safe_ports port 80 Â Â Â Â Â# http >>> >> acl Safe_ports port 21 Â Â Â Â Â# ftp >>> >> acl Safe_ports port 443 Â Â Â Â # https >>> >> acl Safe_ports port 70 Â Â Â Â Â# gopher >>> >> acl Safe_ports port 210 Â Â Â Â # wais >>> >> acl Safe_ports port 1025-65535 Â# unregistered ports >>> >> acl Safe_ports port 280 Â Â Â Â # http-mgmt >>> >> acl Safe_ports port 488 Â Â Â Â # gss-http >>> >> acl Safe_ports port 591 Â Â Â Â # filemaker >>> >> acl Safe_ports port 777 Â Â Â Â # multiling http >>> >> acl Safe_ports port 901 Â Â Â Â # SWAT >>> >> http_access deny !Safe_ports >>> >> http_access deny CONNECT !SSL_ports >>> >> >>> >> squid itself do not do any acls, security is ensured by other layers, >>> >> like iptables or acls on routers. >>> > >>> > Having the routers etc assemble the packets and parse the HTTP-layer >>> > protocol to find these details may be a larger bottleneck than testing for >>> > them inside Squid where the parsing has to be done a second time anyway to >>> > pass the request on. >>> > >>> >>> We only do http cache on tcp port 80, and the incoming source IPs is >>> controllable, so iptables should be OK. >>> >>> > Note that the default port and method ACL in Squid are validating on the >>> > HTTP header content URLs not the packet destination port. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> 3. refresh_pattern, mainly cache for pictures >>> >> Make squid cache as long as it can, so it looks likes this: >>> >> refresh_pattern -i \.(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|swf|htm|html|bmp)(\?.*)?$ >>> >> 21600 100% 21600 Âreload-into-ims ignore-reload ignore-no-cache >>> >> ignore-auth ignore-private >>> >> >>> >> 4. multi-instance >>> >> I can't get single squid process runs over 200M, so multi-instance >>> >> make perfect sense. >>> > >>> > Congratulations, most can't get Squid to go over 50MBps per instance. >>> > >>> >> Both CARP frontend and backend (for store HTTP files) need to be >>> >> multi-instanced. Frontend configuration is here: >>> >> http://wiki.squid-cache.org/ConfigExamples/ExtremeCarpFrontend >>> >> >>> >> I heard that squid is still can't process "huge" memory properly, so I >>> >> splited big memory into 6-8GB per instance, which listens at ports >>> >> lower than 80. And on a box with 32GB memory CARP frontend configs >>> >> like this: >>> >> >>> >> cache_peer 192.168.1.73 parent 76 0 carp name=73-76 proxy-only >>> >> cache_peer 192.168.1.73 parent 77 0 carp name=73-77 proxy-only >>> >> cache_peer 192.168.1.73 parent 78 0 carp name=73-78 proxy-only >>> >> cache_peer 192.168.1.73 parent 79 0 carp name=73-79 proxy-only >>> >> >>> >> 5. CARP frontend - cache_mem 0 MB >>> >> I used to use "cache_mem 0 MB", time flies, I think that files smaller >>> >> than 1.5KB would be waste if GET from CARP backend, am I right? I use >>> >> these now: >>> >> >>> >> cache_mem 5 MB >>> >> maximum_object_size_in_memory 1.5 KB >>> > >>> > The best value here differs on every network so we can't answer your >>> > question with details. >>> >>> Here's my idea: did 3 times of tcp hand shake, and transfered data in >>> ONE packet is silly, so let it store locally. According to my >>> observation, no more than 500 StoreEntries per CARP frontend. >>> >>> > Log analysis of live traffic will show you the amount of objects your Squid >>> > are handling in each size bracket. That will determine where the best place >>> > to set this limit at to reduce the lag on small items versus your available >>> > cache_mem memory. >>> > > -- Seyyed Mohsen Saeedi ØÛØ ÙØØÙ ØØÛØÛ
