I'm Using Quad core 3Ghz. Thats why I just run squid(2 instances, to support 
quick abort with delay pool) on virtual machine(with max usage of 2% so far)  
and the rest used it for games, and some electronic simulations.



----- Original Message ----
From: Amos Jeffries <squ...@treenet.co.nz>
To: Ronan Lucio <lis...@tiper.com.br>
Cc: squid-users@squid-cache.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [squid-users] Architecture

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:05:22 -0300, Ronan Lucio <lis...@tiper.com.br>
wrote:
> Adrian,
> 
> Adrian Chadd escreveu:
>> Just another random datapoint - I've just deployed my Squid-2
>> derivative (which is at least as fast as Squid-2.HEAD) as a forward
>> proxy on some current generation hardware. It's peaking at 700
>> requests/sec and ~120mbit a sec with a ~ 30% byte hit rate.
>>
>> A reverse proxy with a high hit rate should do quite a bit better than
>> that.
>>  
> 
> Could you tell what hardware do you use?
> Reading Squid-Guide 
> (http://www.deckle.co.za/squid-users-guide/Installing_Squid) it says 
> Squid isn't CPU intensive, says a multiprocessor machines would not 
> increase speed dramatically.
> 
> I know this docs is so old, but it talks about machines like a Pentium 
> 133 with 128 Mb RAM.

Followed by "while receiving 7 TCP requests a second".
If you have any sort of busy site, a single Squid can handle several
hundred TCP requests per second. This naturally uses a lot more CPU than 7.

FWIW when my squid 2.6GHz single-core box receives 2 TCP req/sec it also
uses very minimal CPU for the squid process ;)

> 
> So initially I was thinking in Dual QuadCore + 4Gb RAM. Now I'm thinking 
> in a Single QuadCore + 2Gb.
> What do you think about that?

The current Squid litany is a dual-core (one core for single Squid process,
one for OS + etc). Quad-core CPUs are currently wasted on a single Squid
instance. To make best use of them would be running 2-3 Squid instances.
Which implies a very high throughput requirement.

> 
> I think a throughput like yours would be great for me.
> 
> Another question: How many disks do you use?
> In other words: Do I need some special disk strategy to achieve such a 
> throughput?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ronan

Amos



      

Reply via email to