>For this 15-25MB/s, do you mean bits or bytes? Thanks
bits
>Thanks John. for small files, why don't use GDSF on both locations?
I can't remember exactly - I'll probably compare them both again soon.
J
2008/12/7 Ken DBA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 12/7/08, john Moylan <[EMAIL PROTE
Ken DBA wrote:
Has anyone get Squid's best performance datas on a server box with common
hardware (ie,DELL 1950)? These datas include:
1) concurrent connections;
2) flow capacity;
3) TPS (http transaction per second).
Thanks.
What I have so far collected is at:
http://wiki.squid-cache.org/K
--- On Sun, 12/7/08, john Moylan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: john Moylan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> GDSF on disk, LRU on
> Memory.
>
Thanks John. for small files, why don't use GDSF on both locations?
> that's serving
> between
> 15-25Mb/s of outbound traffic.
>
For this 15-25MB/s, d
I should add.. hit ratios are 90 or request but only 20-30% of volume
with my current solution. My requirement is to reduce load on the
backend.
J
2008/12/6 john Moylan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have a number of squid boxes behind LVS acting as reverse proxies.
>
> They are all HP DL380/385's G4
I have a number of squid boxes behind LVS acting as reverse proxies.
They are all HP DL380/385's G4 Machines (about 3 years old) with 7GB
to 12 GB per machine, 4 unraided 15K SCSI HDD for caches on each
machine.
Mem Caches are 30% of the available ram on each box and each disk has
a 10GB cache.
I
Has anyone get Squid's best performance datas on a server box with common
hardware (ie,DELL 1950)? These datas include:
1) concurrent connections;
2) flow capacity;
3) TPS (http transaction per second).
Thanks.
