Re: some linux tuning

>
> How much bandwidth to the 'net do you have? I think that's one of
> the critical factors in how much performance you need to get out of the
> cache. Better still is if you can estimate peak "down-stream"

6 T1's to the internet, also close to 10Mbps of incoming news.

> bandwidth to your users. Do you have monitoring software on your
> network so you could add up total bandwidth flows to each terminal
> server, each outgoing dedicated line, etc. to get a peak "incoming
> bandwidth" flow?

We monitor all bandwidth usage so yes we have information like that.

>
> Here's why I really wanted to reply:
>
> Are you actively using this now? Is it working well for you?

They haven't turned it up yet........i emailed them too though.

>
> We are on the brink of signing up with them; one of their tech guys
> is from Hawaii, formerly with one of our rival ISPs, and he's a very
> sharp guy, though he's mainly working on their Usenet service. My math
> says that even just pulling news off their service would save us money,
> and if we get a better cache hit rate, that's "pure gravy". But that's

definitly. We have 2 satellite news feeds, one is $100 a month and the
other is skycache which is a few hundred. both can do 20 or so gigs a
day.

> only if it really works consistently in practice. Any estimate on how
> much cache hits they're delivering to you, or how much bandwidth
> they're successfully offloading?
>

not yet.

>
> > 11. Caching only nameserver ran on squid host
>
> Which nameserver?
>

bind 8.x

> > Some things I have found necessary to keep user complaints down and deal
> > with non compliant sites: (are their any other tips?)
> >
> > quick_abort_min 0 KB
> > quick_abort_max 0 KB
> > quick_abort_pct 100
> > half_closed_clients off
> > uri_whitespace allow
>
> Not yet. Given the number of badly done web servers out there, I'm
> amazed how well Squid deals with them so far; but we haven't put it
> into full customer beta yet. We're very conservative about that kind
> of thing.
>
> -- Clifton
>
> --
> Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr@lava.net
> "An absolute monarch would be absolutely wise and good.
> But no man is strong enough to have no interest.
> Therefore the best king would be Pure Chance.
> It is Pure Chance that rules the Universe;
> therefore, and only therefore, life is good." - AC
>

-----------------------------------------------------
Brian Feeny (BF304) signal@shreve.net
318-222-2638 x 109 http://www.shreve.net/~signal
Network Administrator ShreveNet Inc. (ASN 11881)
Received on Sat Jun 26 1999 - 14:16:02 MDT