I installed Squid 2.7.STABLE6 on a Linux virtual machine, which is running on 
the same physical machine that Squid on Windows is running.   I copied the 
configuration file in, changed a couple paths to the Linux paths, and started 
up Squid.

I then changed the NAT to the Virtual Machine, and now file transfers are as 
fast as they should be.   While this solution works, I'd rather not have to run 
another virtual machine just for Squid when it works fine under Windows except 
for the slow transfers..

It sounds like there's a bug in Squid windows, or some hidden setting or 
something?  I can't imagine I'm the first person to encounter this problem.


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Jamieson [mailto:jjamie...@futurefoundations.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:41 PM
To: squid-users@squid-cache.org
Subject: [squid-users] Squid on Windows, slow file transfers

Hello,

I have squid 2.7.STABLE6 running on Server 2008.    Its purpose is a 
reverse-proxy for several web services.

For instance, one service is OWA, another is a web-based file-sharing utility, 
and another is a plain old web site.   All DNS records (mail., files., www.) 
point to the same IP which is NATted to Squid.   Each of these services is 
running on a separate machine.

It all works great.   Squid determines which back-end machine/port to request 
the data from based on http headers.   It's squid at its finest.

However, file transfers through it are very slow.   The connection is 20Mbit.   
When I go directly to the web file server via a direct NAT, I can download at 
full speed.  1.5MB/s is common from this method.   However, when I go through 
the squid reverse-proxy, response time is great but file transfers never go 
above 200K/s.

It's almost as if connections are capped/throttled at a certain speed within 
squid.  I tested a direct web server on port 80 under the suspicion that the 
ISP was throttling port 80 but it was fine.

I am having a devil of a time tracking down this problem, and any suggestions 
are most welcome.

Thanks.

Joe



Reply via email to