Re: [squid-users] Squid cluster - flat or hierarchical
Hi,
My loadbalancing is handled very well by LVS. My caches are using
unicast ICP with the no-proxy option for their cache_peer's. I don't
think Carp or round robin anything would help me much. My concern is
whether or not my caches performance could suffer from forwarding
loops if they are all siblings of each other? Is it OK to ignore the
forwarding loop warnings in cache.log?
J
On Nov 6, 2007 7:29 AM, Amos Jeffries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Moylan wrote:
Hi,
I have 4 Squid 2.6 reverse proxy servers sitting behind an LVS
loadbalancer with 1 public IP address. In order to improve the hit
rate all 4 servers are all peering with eachother using ICP.
squid1 - sibling squid{2,3,4}
squid2 - sibling squid{1,3,4}
squid3 - sibling squid{1,2,4}
squid4 - sibling squid{1,2,3}
This works fine, apart from lots of warnings about forwarding loops in
the cache.log
I would like to ensure that the configs are optimized for an up and
coming big traffic event.
Can I disregard these forwarding loops and keep my squids in a flat
structure or should I break them up into parent sibling relationships.
Will the forwarding loop errors I am experiencing cause issues during
a quick surge in traffic?
The CARP peering algorithm has been specialy designed and added to cope
efficiently with large arrays or clusters of squid.
IFAIK it's as simple as adding the 'carp' option to your cache_peer
lines in place of other such as round-robin.
http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v2/2.6/cfgman/cache_peer.html
Amos
Re: [squid-users] Squid cluster - flat or hierarchical
Hi,
My loadbalancing is handled very well by LVS. My caches are using
unicast ICP with the no-proxy option for their cache_peer's. I don't
think Carp or round robin anything would help me much. My concern is
whether or not my caches performance could suffer from forwarding
loops if they are all siblings of each other? Is it OK to ignore the
forwarding loop warnings in cache.log?
I'm not entirely sure. The warning appears when a request is dropped due
to the VERY nasty routing situation.
You may need to tweak the options a bit to remove them for siblings.
As an educated guess I'd expect digests etc to be leading to some of the
loops. As peer A tells peer B that peer C has access to it, when peer C
actually gets it from peer A etc.
Still tweaking a flat heirarchy to work as a cloud is harder than using a
efficiency-designed algorithm.
You WILL need some default for going direct though. Either to a default
parent, or allow_direct permissions.
Amos
On Nov 6, 2007 7:29 AM, Amos Jeffries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Moylan wrote:
Hi,
I have 4 Squid 2.6 reverse proxy servers sitting behind an LVS
loadbalancer with 1 public IP address. In order to improve the hit
rate all 4 servers are all peering with eachother using ICP.
squid1 - sibling squid{2,3,4}
squid2 - sibling squid{1,3,4}
squid3 - sibling squid{1,2,4}
squid4 - sibling squid{1,2,3}
This works fine, apart from lots of warnings about forwarding loops in
the cache.log
I would like to ensure that the configs are optimized for an up and
coming big traffic event.
Can I disregard these forwarding loops and keep my squids in a flat
structure or should I break them up into parent sibling relationships.
Will the forwarding loop errors I am experiencing cause issues during
a quick surge in traffic?
The CARP peering algorithm has been specialy designed and added to cope
efficiently with large arrays or clusters of squid.
IFAIK it's as simple as adding the 'carp' option to your cache_peer
lines in place of other such as round-robin.
http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v2/2.6/cfgman/cache_peer.html
Amos
[squid-users] Squid cluster - flat or hierarchical
Hi,
I have 4 Squid 2.6 reverse proxy servers sitting behind an LVS
loadbalancer with 1 public IP address. In order to improve the hit
rate all 4 servers are all peering with eachother using ICP.
squid1 - sibling squid{2,3,4}
squid2 - sibling squid{1,3,4}
squid3 - sibling squid{1,2,4}
squid4 - sibling squid{1,2,3}
This works fine, apart from lots of warnings about forwarding loops in
the cache.log
I would like to ensure that the configs are optimized for an up and
coming big traffic event.
Can I disregard these forwarding loops and keep my squids in a flat
structure or should I break them up into parent sibling relationships.
Will the forwarding loop errors I am experiencing cause issues during
a quick surge in traffic?
Thanks,
John
Re: [squid-users] Squid cluster - flat or hierarchical
John Moylan wrote:
Hi,
I have 4 Squid 2.6 reverse proxy servers sitting behind an LVS
loadbalancer with 1 public IP address. In order to improve the hit
rate all 4 servers are all peering with eachother using ICP.
squid1 - sibling squid{2,3,4}
squid2 - sibling squid{1,3,4}
squid3 - sibling squid{1,2,4}
squid4 - sibling squid{1,2,3}
This works fine, apart from lots of warnings about forwarding loops in
the cache.log
I would like to ensure that the configs are optimized for an up and
coming big traffic event.
Can I disregard these forwarding loops and keep my squids in a flat
structure or should I break them up into parent sibling relationships.
Will the forwarding loop errors I am experiencing cause issues during
a quick surge in traffic?
The CARP peering algorithm has been specialy designed and added to cope
efficiently with large arrays or clusters of squid.
IFAIK it's as simple as adding the 'carp' option to your cache_peer
lines in place of other such as round-robin.
http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v2/2.6/cfgman/cache_peer.html
Amos
