On 14/06/2013 10:15 p.m., Stephan Viljoen wrote:
Hi There,
I need to build a proxy server for an ISP handling about 4000 ip addresses
over a 125Mbps of Internet bandwidth and were wondering what the specs for
such a server would be? It's going to be a transparent squid server
configured with Tpr
On 06/14/2013 07:15 AM, Stephan Viljoen wrote:
Hi There,
I need to build a proxy server for an ISP handling about 4000 ip addresses
over a 125Mbps of Internet bandwidth and were wondering what the specs for
such a server would be? It's going to be a transparent squid server
configured with Tpr
With YMMV in mind, I get different mileage:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Marcus Kool
wrote:
> and if your network pipe has sufficient capacity, also fetching
> an object again from the internet is can be faster than fetching from disk.
Your network may be fast, but it doesn't imply a fast pa
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 09:53:20PM +0800, csn233 wrote:
> With YMMV in mind, I get different mileage:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Marcus Kool
> wrote:
> > and if your network pipe has sufficient capacity, also fetching
> > an object again from the internet is can be faster than fetching
PM
To: squid-users@squid-cache.org
Subject: Re: [squid-users] Squid Hardware requirements.
On 14/06/2013 10:15 p.m., Stephan Viljoen wrote:
> Hi There,
>
> I need to build a proxy server for an ISP handling about 4000 ip
> addresses over a 125Mbps of Internet bandwidth and were wond
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Marcus Kool
wrote:
> Overall, squid servers without disk cache can be faster than with disk cache,
> so it is worth looking at it.
OVERALL, it either can be, or it cannot be. No two ways about it. OVERALL.
>> > - more expensive (disks + battery-backed I/O contr
On 06/14/2013 05:38 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> So fast GHz ratings CPUs are better than more slower cores.
That depends on the difference in CPU speeds, of course. If you are
getting a reasonably fast modern CPU and want to maximize overall
performance on a fixed budget, then getting more [physica
On 06/14/2013 01:03 PM, csn233 wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Marcus Kool
wrote:
- more expensive (disks + battery-backed I/O controller)
Expensive disks/battery-backed are over-kill. More/adequate spindles
should do the job just as well. Why do you need a battery-backed
controll
sible
without sacrificing to much speed.
-Original Message-
From: Marcus Kool [mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com]
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 5:35 PM
To: csn233
Cc: Stephan Viljoen; squid-users@squid-cache.org; support and sales desk
URLfilterDB
Subject: Re: [squid-users] Squid Har
peed.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Marcus Kool [mailto:marcus.k...@urlfilterdb.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 5:35 PM
>> To: csn233
>> Cc: Stephan Viljoen; squid-users@squid-cache.org; support and sales desk
>> URLfilterDB
>&
Hallo, Ricardo,
Du meintest am 14.06.13:
> I think that if you can use a good Disc controller (with 1G+ of
> cache) and make: 1 Raid10 for the SO with 4 discs
> 2 RAID10 for 2 disc_cache storages for squid with 4 discs each (or
> even 2 RAID5 with 3 discs each)
Sorry - RAID10 decreases the perfo
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Marcus Kool
wrote:
>>> The 14 MB per GB is documented in the Squid wiki and based on the
>>> observation that the avergae object size is 13 KB.
>>> If you only have 20-30% of the formula you may have a larger average
>>> object size or only use 20-30% of the confgu
On 06/15/2013 02:01 AM, csn233 wrote:
The 14 MB per GB is documented in the Squid wiki and based on the
>>>observation that the avergae object size is 13 KB.
>>>If you only have 20-30% of the formula you may have a larger average
>>>object size or only use 20-30% of the confgured disk cache.
>
13 matches
Mail list logo