Re: [squid-users] clustering squid
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007, Mar Matthias Darin wrote: > >I am looking to utilize squid as a reverse proxy for a medium sized > >implementation that will need to scale to a lot of requests/sec (a lot > >is a relative/unknown term). I found this very informative thread: > >http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200704/0089.html > > I have written some software that will make managing the log files a bit > easier. You can consolidate the logs to a signle system (and file if you > wish)(via TCP connections) and the logs are rotated automatically each > night (without effecting Squid). Also it handles log data above 2gigs > easily. The software is GPL licensed. The url is in my signature. hm, you could easily write a logfile helper process or plugin to pipe those logfiles over a TCP or UDP socket without even touching the disk. That'll be in Squid-2.7 and Squid-3.1 when they're released. Adrian -- - Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial Squid Support -
Re: [squid-users] clustering squid
Hello, Terry writes: I am looking to utilize squid as a reverse proxy for a medium sized implementation that will need to scale to a lot of requests/sec (a lot is a relative/unknown term). I found this very informative thread: http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200704/0089.html I have written some software that will make managing the log files a bit easier. You can consolidate the logs to a signle system (and file if you wish)(via TCP connections) and the logs are rotated automatically each night (without effecting Squid). Also it handles log data above 2gigs easily. The software is GPL licensed. The url is in my signature. --- Logger: Taking control of system logs. http://freshmeat.net/projects/slogger/
Re: [squid-users] clustering squid
We're using IPVS/LVS in our configuration. We have 13 squid instances running, 10 running debian w/ 32bit squid and 3 running on solaris 9 on sun netra x1. The netras are for low traffic stuff. The 2 load balancers are dell 1U boxes have quad intel nics running debian and packages from ultra monkey. Uptime's been over a year w/o an problems. Our layout: world-> load balancers -> squid pool -> cgi servers mike At 05:01 PM 12/17/2007, Amos Jeffries wrote: > Hello, > > I am looking to utilize squid as a reverse proxy for a medium sized > implementation that will need to scale to a lot of requests/sec (a lot > is a relative/unknown term). I found this very informative thread: > http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200704/0089.html > > However, is clustering the OS the only way to provide a high > availability (active/active or active/standby) solution? For > example, with Red Hat Cluster Suite. Here is a rough drawing of my > logic: > Client --- > FW ---> Squid ---> Load Balancer ---> Webservers > > They already have expensive load balancers in place so they aren't > going anywhere. Thanks for any insight! > IIRC there has been some large-scale sites setup using CARP in grids between squid sibling acelerators. The problem we have here is that few of the large-scale sites share their configurations back to the community. If you are doing any sort of scalable I'd suggest looking at the ICP-multicast and CARP setup for bandwidth scaling. Squid itself does not include any means of failover for connected clients if an individual cache dies. That is up to the FW/router/switch/loadbalancer between squid and clients. All squid can do it restart itself quickly when something major occurs. Amos
Re: [squid-users] clustering squid
> Hello, > > I am looking to utilize squid as a reverse proxy for a medium sized > implementation that will need to scale to a lot of requests/sec (a lot > is a relative/unknown term). I found this very informative thread: > http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200704/0089.html > > However, is clustering the OS the only way to provide a high > availability (active/active or active/standby) solution? For > example, with Red Hat Cluster Suite. Here is a rough drawing of my > logic: > Client --- > FW ---> Squid ---> Load Balancer ---> Webservers > > They already have expensive load balancers in place so they aren't > going anywhere. Thanks for any insight! > IIRC there has been some large-scale sites setup using CARP in grids between squid sibling acelerators. The problem we have here is that few of the large-scale sites share their configurations back to the community. If you are doing any sort of scalable I'd suggest looking at the ICP-multicast and CARP setup for bandwidth scaling. Squid itself does not include any means of failover for connected clients if an individual cache dies. That is up to the FW/router/switch/loadbalancer between squid and clients. All squid can do it restart itself quickly when something major occurs. Amos
[squid-users] clustering squid
Hello, I am looking to utilize squid as a reverse proxy for a medium sized implementation that will need to scale to a lot of requests/sec (a lot is a relative/unknown term). I found this very informative thread: http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200704/0089.html However, is clustering the OS the only way to provide a high availability (active/active or active/standby) solution? For example, with Red Hat Cluster Suite. Here is a rough drawing of my logic: Client --- > FW ---> Squid ---> Load Balancer ---> Webservers They already have expensive load balancers in place so they aren't going anywhere. Thanks for any insight!
