On 4/08/2016 9:37 p.m., reinerotto wrote: > I have the impression, that these squid versions are much more > memory/CPU-hungry compared to good old 2.7 > Any users out there, to share some experience ? Perhapse on CPU a little. The memory defaults have been raised since even most embeded systems have more than a few MB available now. The buffering memory usage is about the same in Squid-2 and Squid-3 though, maybe smaller even. Unless you are using ICAP in which case it doubles the buffer memory requirements. For embeded systems you will want to tune cache_mem downwards quite a bit. The default is 256MB with no disk cache. Compared to Squid-2 with 32MB of memory cache and 100MB of disk. > > I am running 3.5.20 on a 580MHz MIPS CPU, with 128MB RAM. > So my system is limited in many aspects, and I try some tuning. > For example, recent firefox has a limit of 900 server conns. Which might be > some stress to intercepting squid on my small machine. Especially, as now > persistent conns are default. So I set persistent client conns to off, which > seems to speed up browsing. "seems to" being the operative words. I think you will find that leaving them active, but tweaking the timeouts will have better results than fully disabling. The browser guys (and we) are actively pushing for persistence since it does measurably reduce latency/delay overheads. Amos _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
