Thanks for the information. I'll do some further testing and confirm that the CPU isn't the bottleneck in this case. The machine is a bit long in the tooth but with the faster connection this could easily be the issue. As a general rule, am I correct in sticking with 2.7 for performance or is the current focus on squid3? Regards, Jacques -----Original Message----- From: squid-users [mailto:squid-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amos Jeffries Sent: 15 October 2014 11:31 AM To: squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Question on throughput -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 15/10/2014 9:41 p.m., Jacques Kruger wrote: > Hi, > > I've implemented my fair share of squid proxies over the past couple > of years and I've always been able to find a solution in the mail > archive, but this time around I'm stumped. This is the first time I've > used squid with a fast (in our context) internet connection, > specifically a 4G connection that the provider claims can run up to > 100Mbps. Claims aside, my real-world testing is not what I'm > expecting. I've used two squid instances, one on PFsence > (2.7.9) and one on Windows (2.7Stable8) and compared the throughput to > a connection without squid and what I've found is, when testing with > www.speedtest.net<http://www.speedtest.net> the throughput is roughly > half with squid compared to a direct connection. I've left to > configuration pretty much default and have tried to tweak, both > without success. > > What are the directives that have the most effect on throughput? Not directives particularly, but on Windows the FD limit is fixed at an absolute 2048, whereas non-Windows can exceed that by a few hundred thousand or millions if needed. It also depends on the NIC of the Squid machine. If that Windows box is using a single NIC, then you will be maxing out the NIC capacity with traffic going over it twice (client->Squid and Squid->Internet). Then also the CPU gets a say. If the Squid is not doing much and the CPU is very fast, Squid can end up running a lot of work cycles transferring just one or a few bytes. Which impacts the TCP overheads by decreasing bytes-per-packet. It also depends on the protocol being used by the tests. In the modern web there are HTTP/1.0, HTTP/1.1, WebSockets, HTTP/2, and SPDY capable of being used for the test itself - the latter two of those involve bandwidth comoression that can greatly enhance throughput. But only HTTP/1.0 through default Squid-2.7 (HTTP/1.1 with tweaking). PS. I would be interested to see what your results are with the squid-3.3.3 now available for Windows via Cygwin. Amos -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUPj7eAAoJELJo5wb/XPRj0WgH/iBxr/0CK+MMnL5PB/ZyANqx uxazgxCsp+EDyxl2MR+iccsaerN/gdTM7Rzms1/PBlExk2yNQb8/6EUC8XQlJs8m EEDI0lmd13jeVIWmXP2vYy1vQATuS7OMI0bvkfCDSI/bYVaHKMKCtssCPdQRKxul akGgY7LhX7lLlkzgzrnrU8HUNN/PjFI7tg3y0xKihwEaDckYHcqg260cHJdjeI6C 2kZfFeJFMV0D0Y7N1HO38OKkJpHBIJoWDWWWlmI8j01UpsBSuxRqw51r1372jkne Ka5m9vlQfGXWvI5Zg7uL3CxlBRTe6oe7T0n3dmHGy4KnvDbT09MXYMkS3ShTfzU= =7UJb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
