On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 03/04/11 12:52, david@xxxxxxx wrote:
still no response from anyone.
Is there any interest in investigating this issue? or should I just
write off squid for future use due to it's performance degrading?
It is a very ambiguous issue..
* We have your report with some nice rate benchmarks indicating regression
* We have two others saying me-too with less details
* We have an independent report indicating that 3.1 is faster than 2.7. With
benchmarks to prove it.
* We have several independent reports indicating that 3.2 is faster than
3.1. One like yours with benchmark proof.
* We have someone responding to your report saying the CPU type affects
things in a large way (likely due to SMP using CPU-level features)
* We have our own internal testing which shows also a mix of results with
the variance being dependent on which component of Squid is tested.
Your test in particular is testing both the large object pass-thru (proxy
only) capacity and the parser CPU ceiling.
Could you try your test on 3.2.0.6 and 3.1.12 please? They both now have a
server-facing buffer change which should directly affect your test results in
a good way.
thanks for the response, part of my frustration was just not hearing
anything back.
I'll do the tests on the new version shortly (hopefully on monday)
if there are other tests that people would like me to perform on the
hardware I have available, please let me know.
right now I am just testing proxy/ACL with no caching, but I am testing
four traffic types
1. small static files
2. large static files
3. small dynamic files (returning the exact same data as 1, but only after
a fixed delay)
4. large dynamic files.
while I see a dramatic difference in the performance on the different
tests, so far the ratios between the different versions have been
consistant across all four scenerios.
David Lang
