Re: [m_b_users] [OT] Replacing reverse squid with mod_proxy
On Monday, March 25, 2002, at 10:20 AM, Hans Juergen von Lengerke wrote: > We are currently using squid set up as a reverse proxy to accelerate > several heavy backends (mod_perl, etc) and to protect them from slow > client connections. > > I am looking into replacing the squid with apache+mod_proxy. Why? > Because ultimately I'd like to be able to cluster the frontend using > mod_backhand + wackamole. The primary reason for clustering isn't for > load-balancing (yet) but for failover handling. So, ideally, one machine > should be enough to serve the whole server load. wackamole and mod_backhand are completely independent. If you are happy with Squid, just use wackamole and Squid. If you are set on trying use Apache, try the lingerd patch and set the TCP send and receive buffers high. If you are doing 80 hits/s and want to use mod_backhand, then you will most likely want to put BackhandConnectionPool off. -- Theo Schlossnagle Principal Consultant OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. -- http://www.omniti.com/ Phone: +1 301 776 6376 Fax: +1 410 880 4879 1024D/82844984/95FD 30F1 489E 4613 F22E 491A 7E88 364C 8284 4984 2047R/33131B65/71 F7 95 64 49 76 5D BA 3D 90 B9 9F BE 27 24 E7
Re: [OT] Replacing reverse squid with mod_proxy
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Hans Juergen von Lengerke wrote: > We are currently using squid set up as a reverse proxy to accelerate > several heavy backends (mod_perl, etc) and to protect them from slow > client connections. > > I am looking into replacing the squid with apache+mod_proxy. Why? > Because ultimately I'd like to be able to cluster the frontend using > mod_backhand + wackamole. The primary reason for clustering isn't for > load-balancing (yet) but for failover handling. So, ideally, one machine > should be enough to serve the whole server load. > > Speaking of load, the squid (2.3.STABLE1) is currently doing up to 80 > requests per second at a cache hit ratio of around 72%. This is on one > box, a Dual 500MHz Pentium III with 1GB RAM. Average object size is 6KB. > 200/304 ratio is around 5/3. > > Now, I've tried to replace the squid with apache+mod_proxy (1.3.11) and > the frontend very quickly came to a standstill. I set MaxClients to 256 > but all slots filled up fast. I upped MaxClients to 512 (recompiled with > patched httpd.h) but the result was the same. All slots were occupied in > no time and the server ground to a halt. > > Now I'm left with two choices: give up or try harder :-) > > Before I decide for one of them I thought I'd ask on the lists (sorry > for the x-post) to see if the above numbers (80 Hits/Second) are in fact > feasible with apache/mod_proxy on one box. Are there any benchmarks > around? Does someone have a similar setup and how many requests can they > serve? Should I up MaxClients any further? Will I get better results > using a newer version of apache? Or should I give up and stick with > squid? Apache can easy handle 80r/s on Ethernet or localhost connection. But if connections are slow (i.e. modem users) and responses are big enough then you can reach MaxClients. As far as I know 80r/s rate requires about 400-600 Apache with 20-40K responses. If your responses are bigger then more Apaches you need. You can increase MaxClients until your swap is free. On 1G you can run about 1000-2000 plain Apaches. But if you plan to use mod_proxy to proxy backend I think you should use mod_accel. Igor Sysoev
Re: [OT] Replacing reverse squid with mod_proxy
Hi there, On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Hans Juergen von Lengerke wrote: > I am looking into replacing the squid with apache+mod_proxy. I don't know if it will do what you need, but you might want to have a look at mod_accel. If this URI is broken mail dapimailru for the information. http://dapi.chaz.ru/articles/mod_accel.xml?lang=en 73, Ged.
Re: [OT] Replacing reverse squid with mod_proxy
[Cross-posting to multiple mailing lists is dangerous (and a little annoying) because people responding will usually not be members of all the lists, and will therefore have to deal with bounces.] On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Hans Juergen von Lengerke wrote: > > Now, I've tried to replace the squid with apache+mod_proxy (1.3.11) and Why are you setting up a new service with an ancient version of apache? mod_proxy has improved immensly since then. Use 1.3.24. Joshua.
Re: [OT] Replacing reverse squid with mod_proxy
- Original Message - From: Hans Juergen von Lengerke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, March 25, 2002 4:20 pm Subject: [OT] Replacing reverse squid with mod_proxy > Now I'm left with two choices: give up or try harder :-) > > Before I decide for one of them I thought I'd ask on the lists (sorry > for the x-post) to see if the above numbers (80 Hits/Second) are > in fact > feasible with apache/mod_proxy on one box. Are there any benchmarks > around? Does someone have a similar setup and how many requests > can they > serve? Should I up MaxClients any further? Will I get better results > using a newer version of apache? Or should I give up and stick with > squid? before giving up you should try 1.3.24 out of March 21 with a re-worked code for mod_proxy; regarding benchmarks I remember a comparison with the tux kernel server, iis5 and apache and more than 500 hits/sec for the last two was beaten by tux with a factor 3. Should be enough for your purpose _ ___ | | IrmundThum | |
[OT] Replacing reverse squid with mod_proxy
We are currently using squid set up as a reverse proxy to accelerate several heavy backends (mod_perl, etc) and to protect them from slow client connections. I am looking into replacing the squid with apache+mod_proxy. Why? Because ultimately I'd like to be able to cluster the frontend using mod_backhand + wackamole. The primary reason for clustering isn't for load-balancing (yet) but for failover handling. So, ideally, one machine should be enough to serve the whole server load. Speaking of load, the squid (2.3.STABLE1) is currently doing up to 80 requests per second at a cache hit ratio of around 72%. This is on one box, a Dual 500MHz Pentium III with 1GB RAM. Average object size is 6KB. 200/304 ratio is around 5/3. Now, I've tried to replace the squid with apache+mod_proxy (1.3.11) and the frontend very quickly came to a standstill. I set MaxClients to 256 but all slots filled up fast. I upped MaxClients to 512 (recompiled with patched httpd.h) but the result was the same. All slots were occupied in no time and the server ground to a halt. Now I'm left with two choices: give up or try harder :-) Before I decide for one of them I thought I'd ask on the lists (sorry for the x-post) to see if the above numbers (80 Hits/Second) are in fact feasible with apache/mod_proxy on one box. Are there any benchmarks around? Does someone have a similar setup and how many requests can they serve? Should I up MaxClients any further? Will I get better results using a newer version of apache? Or should I give up and stick with squid? TIA for your input.
