sorry for the delay. I got a chance to do some more testing (slightly
different environment on the apache server, so these numbers are a
little lower for the same versions than the last ones I posted)
results when requesting short html page
squid 3.0.STABLE12 4000 requests/sec
squid 3.1.11 1500 requests/sec
squid 3.1.12 1530 requests/sec
squid 3.2.0.5 1 worker 1300 requests/sec
squid 3.2.0.5 2 workers 2050 requests/sec
squid 3.2.0.5 3 workers 2700 requests/sec
squid 3.2.0.5 4 workers 2950 requests/sec
squid 3.2.0.5 5 workers 2900 requests/sec
squid 3.2.0.5 6 workers 2530 requests/sec
squid 3.2.0.6 1 worker 1400 requests/sec
squid 3.2.0.6 2 workers 2050 requests/sec
squid 3.2.0.6 3 workers 2730 requests/sec
squid 3.2.0.6 4 workers 2950 requests/sec
squid 3.2.0.6 5 workers 2830 requests/sec
squid 3.2.0.6 6 workers 2530 requests/sec
squid 3.2.0.6 7 workers 2160 requests/sec instead of all processes being at 100% several were at 99%
squid 3.2.0.6 8 workers 1950 requests/sec instead of all processes being at 100% some were as low as 92%
so the new versions are really about the same
moving to large requests cut these numbers by about 1/3, but the squid
processes were not maxing out the CPU
one issue I saw, I had to reduce the number of concurrent connections or I
would have requests time out (3.2 vs earlier versions), on 3.2 I had to
have -c on ab at ~100-150 where I could go significantly higher on 3.1 and
3.0
David Lang
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, david@xxxxxxx wrote:
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
