Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x - 3.4.x: huge performance regression
Hi. On 12.01.2015 16:03, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote: Hi. Just to point this out in the correct thread - to all the people who replied here - Steve Hill has provided a patch for a 3.4.x that solves the most performance degradation issue. 3.4.x is still performing poorly comparing to the 3.3.x branch, but I guess this is due to major code changes. As of now my largest production installation (1.2K clients, 300-400 active usernames) is running 3.4.9. ... and massively leaking, yeah. Eugene. ___ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x - 3.4.x: huge performance regression
Info added to the bug report. On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Diego Woitasen di...@woitasen.com.ar wrote: Hi, I have more information. The testing environment has a few users. We switched to basic authencation and it's been working for a week without any issues. A couple of days ago we enabled NTLM again and the issue appeared again. I 'm on mobile now. I'll add more info in the bug report. Regards, Diego On Oct 25, 2014 1:51 PM, Eliezer Croitoru elie...@ngtech.co.il wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hey Diego, Can you take a look at the bug report and help pinpoint the issue please? http://bugs.squid-cache.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3997 I am pretty sure it's unique to auth only but I want to verify that external_acl helpers do not affect this issue. Also if you can share the testing environment details or we can get some help with testing from your IT testing team? Thanks, Eliezer On 10/25/2014 06:17 PM, Diego Woitasen wrote: Same problem here. New users, only a few users from IT testing it and CPU usage is really high from time to time. Switched to basic auth for a few days. Looks like everybody is having issues with NTLM/SPNEGO. Keep in touch and we'll fix it :) Regards, Diego -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUS9TcAAoJENxnfXtQ8ZQU4EEIAIKeKjvzrPSlj8UlGUaWHhT+ 64ontOl7wiYdyo1rjU1MWZxg+6erlVVYg5p46Ki/bznes/on70peU6UndzInLA0K JACZEq0P6eQBDQjP0eVfRbSVo4QeMA/+1prDZY8GAwyI3ugSWndeAT2dqVQFkVdt x3OxXc5ch4nfV9ZF4HPAMKRp6mey4LJjixTToIw9CsoDpcAE7UAWuXi//JOHMqmp b6ZONdhOBCJajWebhEHbUwNbciZVeCgGWXJGuyVA8kp0ChkFTtBnC7BpNjWRC3hL rH5cJcfJXyFLoG67qZaPTueakk5aII8Aj2DkPauK2ofQAOjlLL6gh45GiO1oeJ0= =sV5l -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users -- Diego Woitasen Infrastructure Developer, DevOps Engineer, Linux and Open Source expert http://www.woitasen.com.ar ___ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x - 3.4.x: huge performance regression
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hey, What is the network load? how many users? Have you been using workers at all in the past? Can you see the avg requests per second on the cache manager page? Eliezer On 10/22/2014 09:02 AM, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote: Hi. I was using the 3.4.x branch for quite some time, it was working just fine on small installations. Yesterday I upgraded my largest cache installation from 3.3.13 to 3.4.8 (same config, diskd, NTLM/GSS-SPNEGO auth helpers, external helpers). Today morning I noticed that squid is spiking to 100% of CPU and almost isn't serving any traffic. Restart didn't help, squid is serving pages while continuing to consume CPU, load grows, until it's at 100%, and after some time my users are unable to open any page from Internet. This is sad, so I downgraded to 3.3.13. CPU consumption went back to 20-35% and everything is back to normal. In order to understand what's happening I did some dtrace profiling to see what is squid busy with, taking the consideration, that measuring the same amount of connect()/socket() syscalls should give same amount of squid work, but the results were totally different on one number of such syscalls. Anyone to comment ? Thanks. Eugene. ___ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUSMf7AAoJENxnfXtQ8ZQU/KwH/icRcMBoEA4Y8u3/inbnvSiT CMPX6On9CO+RJeXlDGcAMfbYofZixB8zR5BuBTOsNS35moqCtHmlzZYtoGxkLGLx RU6KKEhLGuGNyFCnyQx/oh9hcG90PSnaFnsp0m3vClcFtxv3kcdn944VS8hPtKWC MQw7G8KzXwu7RmTaP5nk+EGNX3JAn8GlQaINX6G4zKeujqwrK954KORPMt0S53iQ P7k6rq+ckPDgTIHuK4L+eMCka22y0z2FTo41jxSXK7J6w3GnWUsvwA22yYo6BV1h +4DjvvtoJA3nNuFtXYxXCcBLMXcwk953o2uQKGkqOmlLGg660Bu9tCTBFAvaQsg= =79iu -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x - 3.4.x: huge performance regression
Same here, i'm waiting the right time to go to the customer and try the debug suggested by Amos Jeffries on 3.4.x codes to help to find where is the performance issue. -- View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/3-3-x-3-4-x-huge-performance-regression-tp4668003p4668036.html Sent from the Squid - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
[squid-users] 3.3.x - 3.4.x: huge performance regression
Hi. I was using the 3.4.x branch for quite some time, it was working just fine on small installations. Yesterday I upgraded my largest cache installation from 3.3.13 to 3.4.8 (same config, diskd, NTLM/GSS-SPNEGO auth helpers, external helpers). Today morning I noticed that squid is spiking to 100% of CPU and almost isn't serving any traffic. Restart didn't help, squid is serving pages while continuing to consume CPU, load grows, until it's at 100%, and after some time my users are unable to open any page from Internet. This is sad, so I downgraded to 3.3.13. CPU consumption went back to 20-35% and everything is back to normal. In order to understand what's happening I did some dtrace profiling to see what is squid busy with, taking the consideration, that measuring the same amount of connect()/socket() syscalls should give same amount of squid work, but the results were totally different on one number of such syscalls. Anyone to comment ? Thanks. Eugene. ___ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
