Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
On 13.10 10:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > kalproxy:/var/log/squid # free -m > > > total used free sharedbuffers cached > > > Mem: 1007995 12 0 4 33 > > > -/+ buffers/cache:957 50 > > > Swap: 1027 18 1008 > > > I call this "running low on memory". I recommeng adding more RAM. If you > > can't, first limit memory_pools_size, then you probably should decrease > > cache_mem a bit (32-16-8MB) > > Actually, -/+ buffers/cache is generally only around 4-500 used. Not > terrible. the example above shows that all RAM is used up and only few MB is left for cache. If the situation is usually different > My cache_mem is currently set to "8". I have 128MB and nice memory hit ratio. I had 256MB and tried to lower it for lower memory usage, now I'm thinking about enlarging it a bit :) It all depends on amount of RAM usually available. if the example above happens more often, do not set up squid to eat more memory (or better, buy 512MB of RAM and set cache_mem 128 MB) > Is there a FAQ that explains memory pools and how to use them? config file explains enough imho. I set up 64MB, default 5MB or 50 MB in example is OK. if you have default setting, it's ok. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. "Where do you want to go to die?" [Microsoft]
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
> On Thursday 13 October 2005 13:52, Rodrigo A B Freire wrote: > > Not to mention that when a squid -k rotate is issued (or a -k > > reconfigure), the process may grow up to 2x the amount of its size > > for a few seconds... If you don't have swap enough to buffer this > > grow, the proxy will die miserabily out of memory with a FATAL: > > xmalloc: Unable to allocate xxx bytes. I don't see this that many problematic, especially on linux, which is very effective in these case, so the real memory usage does not grow 2 times. On 13.10 14:01, Raymond A. Meijer wrote: > Good point...but I think I saw it recommended somewhere? Henrik? > > Something about disabling swap and making sure Squid fits into the > available memory... it was probably the second part. there should be enough of memory for squid to fit it all in. however, in some cases there MAY be other data stored on swap. So, if you really have enough of memory (and you should have), you can disable swap. But this was not the case. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. "The box said 'Requires Windows 95 or better', so I bought a Macintosh".
[squid-users] squid tuning was Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
> What is it about browsing the web that's not fast > enough? > It could simply be that authentication routines are > slowing it down. It's not slow at all. There doesn't even seem to a speed decrease without the cache at all. I was just wondering the benefits of having a cache. The architecture is this way: datacenter (squid server) 100Mbps Internet | Ipsec VPN | sites (clients) (768K-3.0Mbps Internet) The nature of the web traffic going over the VPN, and the 100Mbs connection of the Squid server, lead me to believe that cache tuning won't do much. I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong. The squid server has 2GB RAM and a RAID 1 36GB array. The squid partitions are noatime reiserfs. The overall squid server priorities are in this order: availability, then access control, then speed. Right now I have cache_mem set to 256MB and a 5GB cache_dir. I was debating a larger cache_dir, but I didn't want to have any memory starvation problems and I didn't want to run a large cache_dir without an adequate cache_mem. Then I realized that the cache_dir size doesn't seem to have such an effect on performance, so I'd rather have the system be reliable and fail-proof than 2% faster. But I'm open to suggestions (other than changing the architecture, IE putting a squid server at each site's LAN, which I can't do for budgetary, environmental and manageability reasons). --- Chris Covington IT Plus One Health Management 75 Maiden Lane Suite 801 NY, NY 10038 646-312-6269 http://www.plusoneactive.com
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
> > kalproxy:/var/log/squid # free -m > > total used free sharedbuffers cached > > Mem: 1007995 12 0 4 33 > > -/+ buffers/cache:957 50 > > Swap: 1027 18 1008 > I call this "running low on memory". I recommeng adding more RAM. If you > can't, first limit memory_pools_size, then you probably should decrease > cache_mem a bit (32-16-8MB) Actually, -/+ buffers/cache is generally only around 4-500 used. Not terrible. My cache_mem is currently set to "8". Is there a FAQ that explains memory pools and how to use them? Tim Rainier Information Services, Kalsec, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/13/2005 03:44:37 AM: > On 12.10 16:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On a side-note. Your 4x33 are set up as RAID or LVM? > > > neither one is a good idea. > > > http://www.squid-cache.org/Doc/FAQ/FAQ-3.html#ss3.11 > > > > Indeed. I was making sure he wasn't raiding his squid cache. :-) > > > > >if your computes has enough of memory left for metadata cache (inodes and > > >directories where squid data are left), it's OK. if not, you have huge > > >performance bottleneck here (and with only 50 MB of cache_mem, buy more > > >memory). > > > > kalproxy:/var/log/squid # free -m > > total used free sharedbuffers cached > > Mem: 1007995 12 0 4 33 > > -/+ buffers/cache:957 50 > > Swap: 1027 18 1008 > > I call this "running low on memory". I recommeng adding more RAM. If you > can't, first limit memory_pools_size, then you probably should decrease > cache_mem a bit (32-16-8MB) > > -- > Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ > Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. > Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. > - Have you got anything without Spam in it? > - Well, there's Spam egg sausage and Spam, that's not got much Spam in it.
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
On Thursday 13 October 2005 13:52, Rodrigo A B Freire wrote: > Not to mention that when a squid -k rotate is issued (or a -k > reconfigure), the process may grow up to 2x the amount of its size > for a few seconds... If you don't have swap enough to buffer this > grow, the proxy will die miserabily out of memory with a FATAL: > xmalloc: Unable to allocate xxx bytes. Good point...but I think I saw it recommended somewhere? Henrik? Something about disabling swap and making sure Squid fits into the available memory... You are right though. Ray
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
Yeah... Not to mention that when a squid -k rotate is issued (or a -k reconfigure), the process may grow up to 2x the amount of its size for a few seconds... If you don't have swap enough to buffer this grow, the proxy will die miserabily out of memory with a FATAL: xmalloc: Unable to allocate xxx bytes. My own (hard-learned) experience. - Original Message - From: "Kinkie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Raymond A. Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 7:06 AM Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 10:25 +0300, Raymond A. Meijer wrote: On Wednesday 12 October 2005 23:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > kalproxy:/var/log/squid # free -m > Swap: 1027 18 1008 You'd better disable swap on your Squid box. You don't want Squid to be swapped out to disk... I don't agree. You don't want squid to be killed by the OS just because it happens ot be malloc()ing at the wrong moment. VM subsystem do quite a good job nowadays in order to avoid swapping out hot pages. Kinkie
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 10:25 +0300, Raymond A. Meijer wrote: > On Wednesday 12 October 2005 23:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > kalproxy:/var/log/squid # free -m > > Swap: 1027 18 1008 > > You'd better disable swap on your Squid box. You don't want Squid to be > swapped out to disk... I don't agree. You don't want squid to be killed by the OS just because it happens ot be malloc()ing at the wrong moment. VM subsystem do quite a good job nowadays in order to avoid swapping out hot pages. Kinkie
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
> On Wednesday 12 October 2005 23:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > kalproxy:/var/log/squid # free -m > > Swap: 1027 18 1008 On 13.10 10:25, Raymond A. Meijer wrote: > You'd better disable swap on your Squid box. You don't want Squid to be > swapped out to disk... Linux is quite efficient in working with swap. This example showed us that even if memory is used up very much, it doesn't swap too much. He probably should NOT turn off swap, otherwise kernel would start killing processes with OOM error. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Linux - It's now safe to turn on your computer. Linux - Teraz mozete pocitac bez obav zapnut.
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
On 12.10 16:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On a side-note. Your 4x33 are set up as RAID or LVM? > > neither one is a good idea. > > http://www.squid-cache.org/Doc/FAQ/FAQ-3.html#ss3.11 > > Indeed. I was making sure he wasn't raiding his squid cache. :-) > > >if your computes has enough of memory left for metadata cache (inodes and > >directories where squid data are left), it's OK. if not, you have huge > >performance bottleneck here (and with only 50 MB of cache_mem, buy more > >memory). > > kalproxy:/var/log/squid # free -m > total used free sharedbuffers cached > Mem: 1007995 12 0 4 33 > -/+ buffers/cache:957 50 > Swap: 1027 18 1008 I call this "running low on memory". I recommeng adding more RAM. If you can't, first limit memory_pools_size, then you probably should decrease cache_mem a bit (32-16-8MB) -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. - Have you got anything without Spam in it? - Well, there's Spam egg sausage and Spam, that's not got much Spam in it.
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
On Wednesday 12 October 2005 23:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > kalproxy:/var/log/squid # free -m > Swap: 1027 18 1008 You'd better disable swap on your Squid box. You don't want Squid to be swapped out to disk... Ray
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
Tim, Not really! I can add as much cache_dir as I want on squid.conf: cache_dir diskd /usr/local/squid/var/cacheb 38000 16 256 Q1=70 Q2=80 cache_dir diskd /usr/local/squid/var/cachec 38000 16 256 Q1=70 Q2=80 cache_dir diskd /usr/local/squid/var/cached 38000 16 256 Q1=70 Q2=80 cache_dir diskd /usr/local/squid/var/cachee 38000 16 256 Q1=70 Q2=80 Got it? ;-) - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 5:54 PM Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? Oh. You're running 4 seperate caches? Yeah, I couldn't see why anyone would want to RAID squid cache. :-) Tim Rainier Information Services, Kalsec, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Rodrigo A B Freire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/12/2005 01:24 PM To <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc Subject Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? Hello, Tim! The disks ae completely stand-alone. No volume manager, no RAID: #/dev/sdb/usr/local/squid/var/cacheb reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0 #/dev/sdc/usr/local/squid/var/cachec reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0 #/dev/sdd/usr/local/squid/var/cached reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0 #/dev/sde/usr/local/squid/var/cachee reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0 I've read somewere that Squid is a worst-case scenario for RAIDs, due to the atomicity of the files and they're sparsed. Best regards, Rodrigo. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? Oh yeah. I definitely see the advantages. The fact is, we're small enough that it hasn't sorely affected us much at all. My access log for squid grows to about 4-10 GB in a week. I made it adimently clear that I would only retain 1 weeks worth of access logging information. When it comes down to it, I would've never moved this box into production if we ran anything else off from it. It's dedicated to caching and blocking content (squidguard). I have had very few complaints on performance (with the exception of the period when we were testing with authentication routines). On a side-note. Your 4x33 are set up as RAID or LVM? Tim Rainier Information Services, Kalsec, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Rodrigo A B Freire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/11/2005 10:52 PM To cc Subject Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? In my cache server, every mount is set "noatime". Since the server is dedicated to the web caching, I don't need the "last time someone accessed a given file". BTW, FYI.. On my cache.log startup: Max Swap size: 132592000 KB 4x33 GB UW-SCSI2 drives. I fills almost my entire RAM. My cache_mem is set to only 50 MBs, since the object table goes quite large into the memory. But, why mind? The disk access is fast enough (avg. 9 ms to access cached objects). The OS lies in a 9-GB disk drive. Logs rotated and compressed (access.log and cache.log, don't log store.log) daily. Monthly, FTPed to another server, backup and remove the old ones from cache machine [access.log may reach 1 GB/day]. My cache occupies entire hard disks, with no partitions [mkfs.reiser4 (yeah!) -f /dev/sdb, sdc, sdd, sde]. The advantage? Well, If I want to zero the cache swap, I just stop squid, umount the partition, kick a mkfs and re-mount drives. Elapsed time? 10 seconds, I say. rm -f /usr/local/squid/var/cachexx ? Damn, it may take up to 20 minutes (with a 27 GB cache_dir). Another thing I have into account is the fact of the intense I/O in the cache dir. Definitely, I don't feel comfy about all this I/O in my OS main disk. And, placing in different disks, the log writting isn't concomitant with a eventual disk op cache-related. A power loss might led to a long fsck (the cache mounts aren't FSCKed), which results to long time bringing the machine back up and lots of users whining (altough we use WPAD with quite good results when directing the traffic to another server in case of failure). My 2 cents: I would consider seriously creating a separate partition to the cache (if a second or more disks isn't an option). Both of them with "noatime" ;-) Best regards, Rodrigo. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? First off, there's no possible way my cache would "fill" the '/' partition. There's a cache size directive in squid that's designed to limit the amount of disk space usage. Not to mention the fact that I have a utility script that runs every 15 minutes, which pages me if partitions are >= to 90% their capacity. I mean, honestly, who would run a 146GB cache? Second off, it's a performance thing. The
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
> On a side-note. Your 4x33 are set up as RAID or LVM? > neither one is a good idea. > http://www.squid-cache.org/Doc/FAQ/FAQ-3.html#ss3.11 Indeed. I was making sure he wasn't raiding his squid cache. :-) > if your computes has enough of memory left for metadata cache (inodes and >directories where squid data are left), it's OK. if not, you have huge >performance bottleneck here (and with only 50 MB of cache_mem, buy more >memory). kalproxy:/var/log/squid # free -m total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 1007995 12 0 4 33 -/+ buffers/cache:957 50 Swap: 1027 18 1008 Tim Rainier Information Services, Kalsec, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/12/2005 02:12 PM To squid-users@squid-cache.org cc Subject Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? On 12.10 10:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The fact is, we're small enough that it hasn't sorely affected us much at > all. My access log for squid grows to about 4-10 GB in a week. wow, that's very much of data transferred in a week. > I made it adimently clear that I would only retain 1 weeks worth of access > logging information. 1-2 weeks are recommended, if you can set up a few FAST disks. you should use each drive as separate cache_dir, unless you use mirroring (which is useless in many cases) [someone other...] > In my cache server, every mount is set "noatime". Since the server is > dedicated to the web caching, I don't need the "last time someone accessed > a given file". the 'noatime' option for most filesystems does not matter. > 4x33 GB UW-SCSI2 drives. I fills almost my entire RAM. My cache_mem is set > > to only 50 MBs, since the object table goes quite large into the memory. > But, why mind? The disk access is fast enough (avg. 9 ms to access cached > objects). if your computes has enough of memory left for metadata cache (inodes and directories where squid data are left), it's OK. if not, you have huge performance bottleneck here (and with only 50 MB of cache_mem, buy more memory). -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
Oh. You're running 4 seperate caches? Yeah, I couldn't see why anyone would want to RAID squid cache. :-) Tim Rainier Information Services, Kalsec, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Rodrigo A B Freire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/12/2005 01:24 PM To <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc Subject Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? Hello, Tim! The disks ae completely stand-alone. No volume manager, no RAID: #/dev/sdb/usr/local/squid/var/cacheb reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0 #/dev/sdc/usr/local/squid/var/cachec reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0 #/dev/sdd/usr/local/squid/var/cached reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0 #/dev/sde/usr/local/squid/var/cachee reiser4 rw,noatime 0 0 I've read somewere that Squid is a worst-case scenario for RAIDs, due to the atomicity of the files and they're sparsed. Best regards, Rodrigo. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? > Oh yeah. I definitely see the advantages. > > The fact is, we're small enough that it hasn't sorely affected us much at > all. My access log for squid grows to about 4-10 GB in a week. > I made it adimently clear that I would only retain 1 weeks worth of access > logging information. > > When it comes down to it, I would've never moved this box into production > if we ran anything else off from it. It's dedicated to caching and > blocking content (squidguard). > I have had very few complaints on performance (with the exception of the > period when we were testing with authentication routines). > > On a side-note. Your 4x33 are set up as RAID or LVM? > > Tim Rainier > Information Services, Kalsec, INC > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > "Rodrigo A B Freire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 10/11/2005 10:52 PM > > To > > cc > > Subject > Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? > > > > > > >In my cache server, every mount is set "noatime". Since the server is > dedicated to the web caching, I don't need the "last time someone accessed > a > given file". > >BTW, FYI.. On my cache.log startup: > > Max Swap size: 132592000 KB > > 4x33 GB UW-SCSI2 drives. I fills almost my entire RAM. My cache_mem is set > > to only 50 MBs, since the object table goes quite large into the memory. > But, why mind? The disk access is fast enough (avg. 9 ms to access cached > objects). > >The OS lies in a 9-GB disk drive. Logs rotated and compressed > (access.log and cache.log, don't log store.log) daily. Monthly, FTPed to > another server, backup and remove the old ones from cache machine > [access.log may reach 1 GB/day]. > >My cache occupies entire hard disks, with no partitions [mkfs.reiser4 > (yeah!) -f /dev/sdb, sdc, sdd, sde]. > >The advantage? Well, If I want to zero the cache swap, I just stop > squid, umount the partition, kick a mkfs and re-mount drives. Elapsed > time? > 10 seconds, I say. >rm -f /usr/local/squid/var/cachexx ? >Damn, it may take up to 20 minutes (with a 27 GB cache_dir). > >Another thing I have into account is the fact of the intense I/O in > the > cache dir. Definitely, I don't feel comfy about all this I/O in my OS main > > disk. And, placing in different disks, the log writting isn't concomitant > with a eventual disk op cache-related. > >A power loss might led to a long fsck (the cache mounts aren't > FSCKed), > which results to long time bringing the machine back up and lots of users > whining (altough we use WPAD with quite good results when directing the > traffic to another server in case of failure). > >My 2 cents: I would consider seriously creating a separate partition > to > the cache (if a second or more disks isn't an option). Both of them with > "noatime" ;-) > > Best regards, > > Rodrigo. > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:19 PM > Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? > > >> First off, there's no possible way my cache would "fill" the '/' >> partition. There's a cache size directive in squid that's designed to >> limit the amount of disk space usage. >> Not to mention the fact that I have a utility script that runs every 15 >> minutes, which pages me if partitions are >= to 90% their capacity. I >> mean, honestly, who would run a 146GB cache? >> >> Second off, it's a performance thing. The fact is, the box and
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
On 12.10 10:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The fact is, we're small enough that it hasn't sorely affected us much at > all. My access log for squid grows to about 4-10 GB in a week. wow, that's very much of data transferred in a week. > I made it adimently clear that I would only retain 1 weeks worth of access > logging information. 1-2 weeks are recommended, if you can set up a few FAST disks. > On a side-note. Your 4x33 are set up as RAID or LVM? neither one is a good idea. http://www.squid-cache.org/Doc/FAQ/FAQ-3.html#ss3.11 you should use each drive as separate cache_dir, unless you use mirroring (which is useless in many cases) [someone other...] > In my cache server, every mount is set "noatime". Since the server is > dedicated to the web caching, I don't need the "last time someone accessed > a given file". the 'noatime' option for most filesystems does not matter. > 4x33 GB UW-SCSI2 drives. I fills almost my entire RAM. My cache_mem is set > > to only 50 MBs, since the object table goes quite large into the memory. > But, why mind? The disk access is fast enough (avg. 9 ms to access cached > objects). if your computes has enough of memory left for metadata cache (inodes and directories where squid data are left), it's OK. if not, you have huge performance bottleneck here (and with only 50 MB of cache_mem, buy more memory). -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
Oh yeah. I definitely see the advantages. The fact is, we're small enough that it hasn't sorely affected us much at all. My access log for squid grows to about 4-10 GB in a week. I made it adimently clear that I would only retain 1 weeks worth of access logging information. When it comes down to it, I would've never moved this box into production if we ran anything else off from it. It's dedicated to caching and blocking content (squidguard). I have had very few complaints on performance (with the exception of the period when we were testing with authentication routines). On a side-note. Your 4x33 are set up as RAID or LVM? Tim Rainier Information Services, Kalsec, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Rodrigo A B Freire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/11/2005 10:52 PM To cc Subject Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? In my cache server, every mount is set "noatime". Since the server is dedicated to the web caching, I don't need the "last time someone accessed a given file". BTW, FYI.. On my cache.log startup: Max Swap size: 132592000 KB 4x33 GB UW-SCSI2 drives. I fills almost my entire RAM. My cache_mem is set to only 50 MBs, since the object table goes quite large into the memory. But, why mind? The disk access is fast enough (avg. 9 ms to access cached objects). The OS lies in a 9-GB disk drive. Logs rotated and compressed (access.log and cache.log, don't log store.log) daily. Monthly, FTPed to another server, backup and remove the old ones from cache machine [access.log may reach 1 GB/day]. My cache occupies entire hard disks, with no partitions [mkfs.reiser4 (yeah!) -f /dev/sdb, sdc, sdd, sde]. The advantage? Well, If I want to zero the cache swap, I just stop squid, umount the partition, kick a mkfs and re-mount drives. Elapsed time? 10 seconds, I say. rm -f /usr/local/squid/var/cachexx ? Damn, it may take up to 20 minutes (with a 27 GB cache_dir). Another thing I have into account is the fact of the intense I/O in the cache dir. Definitely, I don't feel comfy about all this I/O in my OS main disk. And, placing in different disks, the log writting isn't concomitant with a eventual disk op cache-related. A power loss might led to a long fsck (the cache mounts aren't FSCKed), which results to long time bringing the machine back up and lots of users whining (altough we use WPAD with quite good results when directing the traffic to another server in case of failure). My 2 cents: I would consider seriously creating a separate partition to the cache (if a second or more disks isn't an option). Both of them with "noatime" ;-) Best regards, Rodrigo. - Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? > First off, there's no possible way my cache would "fill" the '/' > partition. There's a cache size directive in squid that's designed to > limit the amount of disk space usage. > Not to mention the fact that I have a utility script that runs every 15 > minutes, which pages me if partitions are >= to 90% their capacity. I > mean, honestly, who would run a 146GB cache? > > Second off, it's a performance thing. The fact is, the box and the web > run quite fine. This was a test server that was thrown into production > because it works. > My plans to upgrade the device are set, I'm just trying to find the time > to do them. :-) > > Thirdly, can someone PLEASE answer my question about setting "/" to > 'noatime', as opposed to avoiding it by telling me how and why what I'm > doing > is stupid? > > Once again, are there pitfalls to having '/' set to 'noatime'? > > :-) > > Tim Rainier > Information Services, Kalsec, INC > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > "Joost de Heer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 10/11/2005 05:07 PM > Please respond to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > To > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc > squid-users@squid-cache.org > Subject > Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> What if the squid cache is stored on the "/" partition? > > That's a bad idea. Your cache could potentially fill up the root > partition. > >> Wouldn't that be a hideous mistake to set "/" to 'noatime' ? > > Wouldn't it be a hideous mistake to put the cache on the same partition as > "/"? > > Joost > > > >
RE: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
Very cool! Thanx! Tim Rainier Information Services, Kalsec, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Chris Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/11/2005 06:09:53 PM: > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:20 PM > > To: squid-users@squid-cache.org > > Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? > > > > > > First off, there's no possible way my cache would "fill" the '/' > > partition. There's a cache size directive in squid that's > > designed to > > limit the amount of disk space usage. > > Not to mention the fact that I have a utility script that > > runs every 15 > > minutes, which pages me if partitions are >= to 90% their > > capacity. I > > mean, honestly, who would run a 146GB cache? > > > > Second off, it's a performance thing. The fact is, the box > > and the web > > run quite fine. This was a test server that was thrown into > > production > > because it works. > > My plans to upgrade the device are set, I'm just trying to > > find the time > > to do them. :-) > > > > Thirdly, can someone PLEASE answer my question about setting "/" to > > 'noatime', as opposed to avoiding it by telling me how and > > why what I'm > > doing > > is stupid? > > > > Once again, are there pitfalls to having '/' set to 'noatime'? > > > > :-) > > > > Tim Rainier > > Information Services, Kalsec, INC > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Simple solutions: don't set noatime in fstab. Just set it for the cache dir. > http://www.faqs.org/docs/securing/chap6sec73.html > > As for pitfalls, I don't really see any outside of forensics. All > the atime option does is keep track of when a file is read (accessed). > > Chris
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
In my cache server, every mount is set "noatime". Since the server is dedicated to the web caching, I don't need the "last time someone accessed a given file". BTW, FYI.. On my cache.log startup: Max Swap size: 132592000 KB 4x33 GB UW-SCSI2 drives. I fills almost my entire RAM. My cache_mem is set to only 50 MBs, since the object table goes quite large into the memory. But, why mind? The disk access is fast enough (avg. 9 ms to access cached objects). The OS lies in a 9-GB disk drive. Logs rotated and compressed (access.log and cache.log, don't log store.log) daily. Monthly, FTPed to another server, backup and remove the old ones from cache machine [access.log may reach 1 GB/day]. My cache occupies entire hard disks, with no partitions [mkfs.reiser4 (yeah!) -f /dev/sdb, sdc, sdd, sde]. The advantage? Well, If I want to zero the cache swap, I just stop squid, umount the partition, kick a mkfs and re-mount drives. Elapsed time? 10 seconds, I say. rm -f /usr/local/squid/var/cachexx ? Damn, it may take up to 20 minutes (with a 27 GB cache_dir). Another thing I have into account is the fact of the intense I/O in the cache dir. Definitely, I don't feel comfy about all this I/O in my OS main disk. And, placing in different disks, the log writting isn't concomitant with a eventual disk op cache-related. A power loss might led to a long fsck (the cache mounts aren't FSCKed), which results to long time bringing the machine back up and lots of users whining (altough we use WPAD with quite good results when directing the traffic to another server in case of failure). My 2 cents: I would consider seriously creating a separate partition to the cache (if a second or more disks isn't an option). Both of them with "noatime" ;-) Best regards, Rodrigo. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? First off, there's no possible way my cache would "fill" the '/' partition. There's a cache size directive in squid that's designed to limit the amount of disk space usage. Not to mention the fact that I have a utility script that runs every 15 minutes, which pages me if partitions are >= to 90% their capacity. I mean, honestly, who would run a 146GB cache? Second off, it's a performance thing. The fact is, the box and the web run quite fine. This was a test server that was thrown into production because it works. My plans to upgrade the device are set, I'm just trying to find the time to do them. :-) Thirdly, can someone PLEASE answer my question about setting "/" to 'noatime', as opposed to avoiding it by telling me how and why what I'm doing is stupid? Once again, are there pitfalls to having '/' set to 'noatime'? :-) Tim Rainier Information Services, Kalsec, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Joost de Heer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/11/2005 05:07 PM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc squid-users@squid-cache.org Subject Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: What if the squid cache is stored on the "/" partition? That's a bad idea. Your cache could potentially fill up the root partition. Wouldn't that be a hideous mistake to set "/" to 'noatime' ? Wouldn't it be a hideous mistake to put the cache on the same partition as "/"? Joost
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
Thirdly, can someone PLEASE answer my question about setting "/" to 'noatime', as opposed to avoiding it by telling me how and why what I'm doing is stupid? Once again, are there pitfalls to having '/' set to 'noatime'? If your squid box is only used for Squid then there are *probably* no pitfalls to setting 'noatime'. If you have mission critical software that depends on this access time info, then sure don't set it. However, I read that setting noatime should speed up disk performance significantly. I am not aware of any possiblities of filesystem corruption and the likes by setting noatime if there are any, maybe someone else can verify the safety of doing this. D.Radel.
RE: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:20 PM > To: squid-users@squid-cache.org > Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? > > > First off, there's no possible way my cache would "fill" the '/' > partition. There's a cache size directive in squid that's > designed to > limit the amount of disk space usage. > Not to mention the fact that I have a utility script that > runs every 15 > minutes, which pages me if partitions are >= to 90% their > capacity. I > mean, honestly, who would run a 146GB cache? > > Second off, it's a performance thing. The fact is, the box > and the web > run quite fine. This was a test server that was thrown into > production > because it works. > My plans to upgrade the device are set, I'm just trying to > find the time > to do them. :-) > > Thirdly, can someone PLEASE answer my question about setting "/" to > 'noatime', as opposed to avoiding it by telling me how and > why what I'm > doing > is stupid? > > Once again, are there pitfalls to having '/' set to 'noatime'? > > :-) > > Tim Rainier > Information Services, Kalsec, INC > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Simple solutions: don't set noatime in fstab. Just set it for the cache dir. http://www.faqs.org/docs/securing/chap6sec73.html As for pitfalls, I don't really see any outside of forensics. All the atime option does is keep track of when a file is read (accessed). Chris
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
On 10/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I mean, honestly, who would run a 146GB cache? We would. But instead we run three 73GB caches in parallel :) > Thirdly, can someone PLEASE answer my question about setting "/" to > 'noatime', as opposed to avoiding it by telling me how and why what I'm > doing is stupid? Because using / for cache_dir is a really really bad idea? > Once again, are there pitfalls to having '/' set to 'noatime'? Yes there are. The "why" is OS-specific, not on-topic for squid-users, please ask on a support listed for your particular OS flavor. Kevin Kadow
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
First off, there's no possible way my cache would "fill" the '/' partition. There's a cache size directive in squid that's designed to limit the amount of disk space usage. Not to mention the fact that I have a utility script that runs every 15 minutes, which pages me if partitions are >= to 90% their capacity. I mean, honestly, who would run a 146GB cache? Second off, it's a performance thing. The fact is, the box and the web run quite fine. This was a test server that was thrown into production because it works. My plans to upgrade the device are set, I'm just trying to find the time to do them. :-) Thirdly, can someone PLEASE answer my question about setting "/" to 'noatime', as opposed to avoiding it by telling me how and why what I'm doing is stupid? Once again, are there pitfalls to having '/' set to 'noatime'? :-) Tim Rainier Information Services, Kalsec, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Joost de Heer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/11/2005 05:07 PM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc squid-users@squid-cache.org Subject Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > What if the squid cache is stored on the "/" partition? That's a bad idea. Your cache could potentially fill up the root partition. > Wouldn't that be a hideous mistake to set "/" to 'noatime' ? Wouldn't it be a hideous mistake to put the cache on the same partition as "/"? Joost
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > What if the squid cache is stored on the "/" partition? That's a bad idea. Your cache could potentially fill up the root partition. > Wouldn't that be a hideous mistake to set "/" to 'noatime' ? Wouldn't it be a hideous mistake to put the cache on the same partition as "/"? Joost
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
What is it about browsing the web that's not fast enough? It could simply be that authentication routines are slowing it down. Part of the whole reason behind caching data is to prevent having to download popular sites/images/files/etc more than once. For example, if 20 people request the current weather information from weather.com, then squid downloads it once from the web and uses said downloaded data for the 20 people that requested it. Thus, decreasing the amount of bandwidth required and speeding things up (since it's a lot faster to download data from a system on your LAN than it is to grab it 20 times from the web. Six and one half dozen of the other, really. If the machine you're running squid on has other responsibilities (especially those that are I/O intensive), then disabling the cache would speed the server up. However, I don't think it would necessarily "speed up squid". Tim Rainier Information Services, Kalsec, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Covington, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/11/2005 03:49 PM To "Squid Users" cc Subject Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? > This is more of a filesystem question, then it is an operating > system/distro question. Let's say one is using Squid primarily for access control. What benefits would a cache provide? Would eliminating the cache help speed up squid, assuming there is ample bandwidth? --- Chris Covington IT Plus One Health Management 75 Maiden Lane Suite 801 NY, NY 10038 646-312-6269 http://www.plusoneactive.com
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
> This is more of a filesystem question, then it is an operating > system/distro question. Let's say one is using Squid primarily for access control. What benefits would a cache provide? Would eliminating the cache help speed up squid, assuming there is ample bandwidth? --- Chris Covington IT Plus One Health Management 75 Maiden Lane Suite 801 NY, NY 10038 646-312-6269 http://www.plusoneactive.com
RE: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
I realize that and agree. My situation was screwy because of the server I'm running squid on. It has several internal partitions that are used for bios/post which disallowed me to set up partitions the way I wanted to. Not to mention the fact that this was really just a test squid box that I had tuned to the point where we were satisfied with it being in production. It's in the works to have the services transferred to our new server platform standard, from which squid WILL have its own disks. I guess I just wanted to clarify for myself, and anyone else interested, that (like the document states) setting the 'noatime' mount parameter is contingent on the squid cache being on its own disk(s). Tim Rainier Information Services, Kalsec, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Chris Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/11/2005 03:06:09 PM: > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:27 AM > > To: squid-users@squid-cache.org > > Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? > > Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/11/2005 > > 10:07:21 AM: > > > > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > This is more of a filesystem question, then it is an operating > > > > system/distro question. > > > > Based on my research, the benchmarks on the web claim ReiserFS to > > provide > > > > up to 15-20% faster results. > > > > > > > > I've not had any time to do any benchmarking. My cache > > is currently > > > > running on an ext3 partition running > > > > under SLES8 SP3 > > > > > > Regardless of which filesystem you select the most important tuning > > aspect > > > for filesystem performance for Squid (after selection of > > hardware) is > > the > > > noatime mount option. > > > > > > A more complete list, in priority order: > > > > > >1. Amount of memory available > > > > > >2. Number of harddrives used for cache > > > > > >3. noatime mount option > > > > > >4. type of filesystem (except for a few really bad choices). > > > > > > > > > On systems with syncronous directory updates (Solaris, some BSD > > versions) > > > > > >1.5 Mount option to enable asyncronous directory updates, or > > preferably > > > a filesystem meta journal on a separate device taking the heat of > > > directory updates. > > > > > > Regards > > > Henrik > > > > > > > > What if the squid cache is stored on the "/" partition? > > Wouldn't that be a hideous mistake to set "/" to 'noatime' ? > > > > Tim Rainier > > Information Services, Kalsec, INC > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > If you are concerned enough about the performance of Squid to use > the noatime option, Squid should not only have its own partition, it > should have its own disks. Having Squid's cache on "/" indicates > (to me) a multi-use box, not a dedicated Squid server. Notice as > well, the recommendation for mounting Squid's cache noatime falls > below having multiple disks for cache. > > Chris > > Chris
RE: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:27 AM > To: squid-users@squid-cache.org > Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? > Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/11/2005 > 10:07:21 AM: > > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > This is more of a filesystem question, then it is an operating > > > system/distro question. > > > Based on my research, the benchmarks on the web claim ReiserFS to > provide > > > up to 15-20% faster results. > > > > > > I've not had any time to do any benchmarking. My cache > is currently > > > running on an ext3 partition running > > > under SLES8 SP3 > > > > Regardless of which filesystem you select the most important tuning > aspect > > for filesystem performance for Squid (after selection of > hardware) is > the > > noatime mount option. > > > > A more complete list, in priority order: > > > >1. Amount of memory available > > > >2. Number of harddrives used for cache > > > >3. noatime mount option > > > >4. type of filesystem (except for a few really bad choices). > > > > > > On systems with syncronous directory updates (Solaris, some BSD > versions) > > > >1.5 Mount option to enable asyncronous directory updates, or > preferably > > a filesystem meta journal on a separate device taking the heat of > > directory updates. > > > > Regards > > Henrik > > > > What if the squid cache is stored on the "/" partition? > Wouldn't that be a hideous mistake to set "/" to 'noatime' ? > > Tim Rainier > Information Services, Kalsec, INC > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > If you are concerned enough about the performance of Squid to use the noatime option, Squid should not only have its own partition, it should have its own disks. Having Squid's cache on "/" indicates (to me) a multi-use box, not a dedicated Squid server. Notice as well, the recommendation for mounting Squid's cache noatime falls below having multiple disks for cache. Chris Chris
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
What if the squid cache is stored on the "/" partition? Wouldn't that be a hideous mistake to set "/" to 'noatime' ? Tim Rainier Information Services, Kalsec, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/11/2005 10:07:21 AM: > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > This is more of a filesystem question, then it is an operating > > system/distro question. > > Based on my research, the benchmarks on the web claim ReiserFS to provide > > up to 15-20% faster results. > > > > I've not had any time to do any benchmarking. My cache is currently > > running on an ext3 partition running > > under SLES8 SP3 > > Regardless of which filesystem you select the most important tuning aspect > for filesystem performance for Squid (after selection of hardware) is the > noatime mount option. > > A more complete list, in priority order: > >1. Amount of memory available > >2. Number of harddrives used for cache > >3. noatime mount option > >4. type of filesystem (except for a few really bad choices). > > > On systems with syncronous directory updates (Solaris, some BSD versions) > >1.5 Mount option to enable asyncronous directory updates, or preferably > a filesystem meta journal on a separate device taking the heat of > directory updates. > > Regards > Henrik
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is more of a filesystem question, then it is an operating system/distro question. Based on my research, the benchmarks on the web claim ReiserFS to provide up to 15-20% faster results. I've not had any time to do any benchmarking. My cache is currently running on an ext3 partition running under SLES8 SP3 Regardless of which filesystem you select the most important tuning aspect for filesystem performance for Squid (after selection of hardware) is the noatime mount option. A more complete list, in priority order: 1. Amount of memory available 2. Number of harddrives used for cache 3. noatime mount option 4. type of filesystem (except for a few really bad choices). On systems with syncronous directory updates (Solaris, some BSD versions) 1.5 Mount option to enable asyncronous directory updates, or preferably a filesystem meta journal on a separate device taking the heat of directory updates. Regards Henrik
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
This is more of a filesystem question, then it is an operating system/distro question. Based on my research, the benchmarks on the web claim ReiserFS to provide up to 15-20% faster results. I've not had any time to do any benchmarking. My cache is currently running on an ext3 partition running under SLES8 SP3 I've been very happy with the performance. Tim Rainier Information Services, Kalsec, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/10/2005 08:38:53 PM: > On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Sushil Deore wrote: > > > I've tried squid on all the FC's i.e. FC-1,FC-2 & the latest is on FC-3 > > which works fine. > > Have had a couple of reports that the aufs disk I/O performance suffers on > FC-3 and later using NPTL. But I have not verified this myself yet. > > Regards > Henrik
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Sushil Deore wrote: I've tried squid on all the FC's i.e. FC-1,FC-2 & the latest is on FC-3 which works fine. Have had a couple of reports that the aufs disk I/O performance suffers on FC-3 and later using NPTL. But I have not verified this myself yet. Regards Henrik
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
Well I see there is a big discussion with few arguments about best linux for squid. More anwers are not sustained but demostrate love for our distros. Well here I go. Redhat, because is the world Open Source leader and a good balanced distro with big support on any branch, I mean Redhat 9, RHEL, Fedora or the alternative CentOS, wich I use. Fast, realiable, secure with Selinux feature. Regards, Daniel Navarro Maracay, Venezuela. Ps: After all, linux is all linux. --- Tino Reichardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > * Odhiambo Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * On 06/10/05 23:25 +1300, D & E Radel wrote: > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Askar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Bonnici Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Cc: > > > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 11:09 PM > > > Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for > Squid? > > > > > > > > > >Bonnici Daniel wrote: > > > > > > > >>Hi, which is the best linux OS for security > and to run squid?? > > > >> > > > >>cheers > > > >> > > > >>Daniel > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >www.slackware.com > > > > > > > >coz it follows KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) ;) > > > > > > Debian, "apt-get install squid". :-) > > > > > > FreeBSD, "portinstall squid". :-))) > Arch Linux "pacman -S squid" :-() > > > -- > regards, TR > __ Correo Yahoo! Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis! Regístrate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
* Odhiambo Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * On 06/10/05 23:25 +1300, D & E Radel wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Askar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Bonnici Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: > > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 11:09 PM > > Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? > > > > > > >Bonnici Daniel wrote: > > > > > >>Hi, which is the best linux OS for security and to run squid?? > > >> > > >>cheers > > >> > > >>Daniel > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >www.slackware.com > > > > > >coz it follows KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) ;) > > > > Debian, "apt-get install squid". :-) > > > FreeBSD, "portinstall squid". :-))) Arch Linux "pacman -S squid" :-() -- regards, TR
AW: Re(2): [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
> > >What is FC?? > FC is a german football club: FC Köln (cologne).
Re: Re(2): [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Bonnici Daniel wrote: > What is FC?? Fedora Core. http://fedora.redhat.com Maccy
Re: Re(2): [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
FC - Fedora Core -- Sushil. On 7 Oct 2005, Bonnici Daniel wrote: > What is FC?? > > > > Sushil Deore (06/10/2005 19:04): > > > > > >I found FC as the most convenient for squid as I am running it from a long > >time and so far no cribs... :) > > > >I've tried squid on all the FC's i.e. FC-1,FC-2 & the latest is on FC-3 > >which works fine. > > > >-- Sushil. > > > > >
Re(2): [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
What is FC?? Sushil Deore (06/10/2005 19:04): > > >I found FC as the most convenient for squid as I am running it from a long >time and so far no cribs... :) > >I've tried squid on all the FC's i.e. FC-1,FC-2 & the latest is on FC-3 >which works fine. > >-- Sushil. >
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
I found FC as the most convenient for squid as I am running it from a long time and so far no cribs... :) I've tried squid on all the FC's i.e. FC-1,FC-2 & the latest is on FC-3 which works fine. -- Sushil.
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
> Hi, which is the best linux OS for security and to run squid?? This is a matter of opinion. Mine is that gentoo is the best for squid. emerge squid and you're all done. When updates come out for squid or it's dependencies, as with your whole installed package base aka "world" in general, you emerge squid and squid & its dependencies are cupdated while the old one(s) is(are) removed. Or if you want to recompile squid with a different option such as ldap support, you add ldap to your /etc/make.conf and re-emerge squid. No package hell. --- Chris Covington IT Plus One Health Management 75 Maiden Lane Suite 801 NY, NY 10038 646-312-6269 http://www.plusoneactive.com
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
Best advice choose whatever distro you likeand know how to use the best. Nothing agains FreeBSD nothing agains Linux... I presonaly use CentOS 3.0 for my Squid install with SeLinux disabled... cause I really-really don't need it , got a firewall n'all before the squid server, and I'm only serving local clients. Rob - Original Message - From: "D & E Radel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Askar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bonnici Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 12:25 Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? - Original Message - From: "Askar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bonnici Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? Bonnici Daniel wrote: Hi, which is the best linux OS for security and to run squid?? cheers Daniel www.slackware.com coz it follows KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) ;) Debian, "apt-get install squid". :-)
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
Anything that has selinux + execshield integrated ;-) did I say runs good on FC *** PGP Fingerprint: 6695 794A B84E D922 88FB 73CC 6CBD 8036 B3CD 7304 We can't become what we need to be by remaining what we are *** D & E Radel wrote: - Original Message - From: "Askar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bonnici Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? Bonnici Daniel wrote: Hi, which is the best linux OS for security and to run squid?? cheers Daniel www.slackware.com coz it follows KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) ;) Debian, "apt-get install squid". :-)
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
* On 06/10/05 23:25 +1300, D & E Radel wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Askar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Bonnici Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 11:09 PM > Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? > > > >Bonnici Daniel wrote: > > > >>Hi, which is the best linux OS for security and to run squid?? > >> > >>cheers > >> > >>Daniel > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >www.slackware.com > > > >coz it follows KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) ;) > > Debian, "apt-get install squid". :-) FreeBSD, "portinstall squid". :-))) FreeBSD is the most secure of all already suggested, and far the easiest, but you will never get to click Next, Next, Finish unless you know what you are doing. In fact, it never has any GUI unless you install one and configure. So if you want a OS that is Windows-like, please choose anything going with a surname of Linux. -Wash http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html -- +==+ |\ _,,,---,,_ | Odhiambo Washington<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Zzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ | Wananchi Online Ltd. www.wananchi.com |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'| Tel: +254 20 313985-9 +254 20 313922 '---''(_/--' `-'\_) | GSM: +254 722 743223 +254 733 744121 +==+ Expense Accounts, n.: Corporate food stamps.
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
- Original Message - From: "Askar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bonnici Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid? Bonnici Daniel wrote: Hi, which is the best linux OS for security and to run squid?? cheers Daniel www.slackware.com coz it follows KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) ;) Debian, "apt-get install squid". :-)
Re: [squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
Bonnici Daniel wrote: Hi, which is the best linux OS for security and to run squid?? cheers Daniel www.slackware.com coz it follows KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) ;) regards Askar
[squid-users] Which the best OS for Squid?
Hi, which is the best linux OS for security and to run squid?? cheers Daniel
