Hello, I added the following line to my squid.conf and now Squid 3.5.11 is as fast as 2.7.2 and feels like direct internet access. dns_v4_first on Thank You, Patrick Message: 3 Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 02:47:05 +1300 From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Fw: Squid 32-bit (2.7.2) much faster than Squid 64-bit (3.5.11) Message-ID: <566AD3D9.4020609@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On 11/12/2015 10:16 p.m., TarotApprentice wrote: > Sorry should have replied to the list. > > MarkJ > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- >> From: Tarot Apprentice >> >> Looking at the startup logs the 3.4.11 says "store logging disabled" (it had an error) so would account for some of the difference. >> So the builds are different: * OS integration: Squid-2 builds from Acme being made with Visual Studio. So they have native Windows API integration. Squid-3 builds by Diladele are using Cgwin. So a whole OS abstraction layer between Squid and Windows. * HTTP 1.x: Squid-2 is HTTP/1.0-only. Squid-3 does HTTP/1.1 and does a whole lot more protocol processing to detect whether 1.1 features are being used. * X-bit: As you already said 32-bit vs 64-bit. I read some research recently that showed 64-bit is only faster in benchmarks when there is hardware layer retardation being applied to emulating the 32-bit operations on the same hardware. So YMMV. * Features: Squid-2 has less features than Squid-3.5. It also has less of them enabled by default. YMMV. - This includes IPv6 support. Squid-3 waits for both IPv4 and IPv6 responses from DNS. Squid-2 will not be doing that. The configs are different: * DNS: Squid-2 is configured to use the Windows Registry DNS servers (default). Squid-3 is explicitly configured with dns_nameservers to override that to use only a sub-set of the Registry listed NS. - if that one DNS server is running much faster than the others it can account for a lot of speed variance. * Cache: Squid-2 is using a 100MB disk cache + 64MB RAM cache. Squid-3 is using only a 256MB RAM cache. - Usually this should count against Squid-2 in most traffic. But if your Squid are processing objects over 4MB size, then Squid-2 has the advantage of storing them to HDD and fast-ish HITs later. Where Squid-3 has to MISS. >> >> On 11 Dec 2015, at 12:16 PM, Patrick Flaherty wrote: >> >> >> Hello, >> >> Just following up on my slow 3.5.11 Squid server. I loaded the 32-bit 2.7.2 version on the same box and it’s so much faster for me. Its 4 to 5 times faster for me on the same machine. Please any help appreciated. Amos, I think I cleaned up my 3.5.11 squid.conf properly. I think my 2.7.2 squid.conf needs work. >> See below Startup Cache logs from both 3.5.11 and 2.7.2 and also the squid.conf files from 3.5.11 and 2.7.2. >> Both configs look roughly equivalent to me. Except the Squid-3 config defines localnet as being "all" then does an "allow localnet". Making it an open proxy. The Squid-2 is at least restricted to the whitelist domains. Though I dont think that is affecting your results. Uunless someone figured out how to open a tunnel through it already and is using up the bandwidth with an not-yet-logged huge transaction. Amos _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
