I was aware of that page. As you said, it's often RPS so it's not relevant for me. Youssef -------------------- On Apr 10, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Kinkie <gkinkie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > You probably want to check http://wiki.squid-cache.org/KnowledgeBase/Benchmarks > > Unfortunately the benchmarks reported are often expressed as RPS and > not bandwidth. > > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Youssef Ghorbal <djo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Apr 10, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Kinkie <gkinkie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Youssef Ghorbal <djo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> Is there any recent figures about max throughput to be expected from a squid 3.x install (on recent hardware) in the scenario of a single stream downloading a large file (> 1GB) (read not cacheable) >>>> I'm aware that's not a performance metric per se, but it's one of the scenarios we have to deal with. >>>> >>>> Few weeks ago, Amos talked about 50Mb/s (client + server) for a squid 3.1 >>> >>> Hi, >>> 50mb/s seems a very conservative estimate to me; in that scenario >>> Squid is essentially acting as a network pipe. >>> Assuming this is a lab (and we can thus ignore bandwidth and latency >>> on the internet link), the expectation is that this kind of scenario >>> for squid will be CPU and network I/O bound, so in order to give any >>> sensible answer we'd need to know what kind of network interface you >>> would use (fast-ethernet? Giga-ethernet copper? Giga-ethernet fiber? >>> Even faster?), what kind of CPU and what kind of system architecture >>> (server-class? pc-class? virtual?) >> >> I'm agree, it's a LAB and we can ignore bandwidth and latency of Internet link. And it's exactly what you said it's a scenario where Squid is essentially acting as a network pipe. >> Here is a summary of the hardware : >> - 1Gb ethernet NIC (copper) : the same of client and server traffic. >> - 16GB RAM >> - 2 CPUs Quad Core (Xeon E5420 2.5Ghz per core) : I think that the many cores are not relevent since a single stream will eventually be handled by a single core. >> - FreeBSD 8.3 amd64 >> >> What I'm seeing right now is ~50Mb/s on 3.1 release (as Amos said earlier) which seems very conservative estimate to me too, and I was seeking infos on what can be expected in a perfect world. >> If it's the current best figures I can get, that's fine and I'll not be looking to optmise anything else. If it can do a lot better (let's say 10 times better) I'll try to investgate time to reach this (upgrade to the last release, tune the configuration, tune the system etc) >> >> Youssef
