Re: [squid-users] Performance tuning Squid box for ISP traffic

On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 16:47, Martin Marji Cermak wrote:
> Hello Ow,
Hey Martin,

>
> >>I haven't tested calamaris, but it seems unsuitable for me, because my
> >>access logs (with log_mime_hdrs on) grow to 3 GB during 5 hours, so I
> >
> > Can I ask why do you need it? isn't it for problem tracking only?
>
> Exactly. For expample, one client complained about Squid because she
> used HTTP/0.9! So I need to be ready to see what has happend when there
> is an error report.

That's an OLD browser.!! Beware the vulneralbilities(?)

> >>- httpd_accel_with_proxy off (you are intercepting, right?)
> >
> > Do you see problems running in intercept mode? I've read there are quite
> > a number of drawbacks with this.
>
> You mean disadwantages with running in intercept mode with
> "httpd_accel_with_proxy off", i.e. without a possibility to use the
> proxy mode? I cannot see any.

Intercept mode as in, transparent proxy. (hang on, you're using WCCP) so
it may be different.

Since browsers (IE) are not aware they are proxy'ied, they will omit
some needed headers etc.

> If you are in intercept mode, you don't need the proxy mode.
Hmm.. I think I am confused over the difference of intercept mode and
proxy mode.

Which is tranparent proxy and which is ...??

> >>And one more remark. People in this list keep saing the reiserfs is the
> >>best. I decided to use ext3, anyway.
> >
> > I use reiserfs on a 30GB cache.
> Can you somehow measure your Thoughput? Sometimes I am watching the load
> going over 3, I believe the bottleneck are the disks, but I am not realy
> sure.

I can't just yet, it's not production ready and I've not released it out
to the "world". Maybe I should advertise it as an open proxy(?) and let
the cache fill up :-)

> >>According to the performance benchmark in the Duane Wessels book "Squid
> >>the definitive guide", ufs with reiserfs(notail, noatime) has only 61%
> >>Throughput of ufs with ext3fs(event without notaime option).
> >>Does anyone have a comment to this?
> > on Linux 2.4 with 32 threads, ext3fs is fastest.
> >
> > schemeFS Mount Opt throughput
> > aufs ext3 noatime 168
> > ufs reiserfs noatime,notail 21.4
    ufs ext3 NONE 48.4

This is the order of fast'ness
ext2fs
ext3
xfs
reiserfs

For some reason, reiserfs is the lowest performance wise.
Now, i"m really having some doubts.

> Ooops, you are comparing aufs with ufs scheme, that is not fair to
> reiserfs :-)
>
>
> Have a nice day, Ow,
Cheers. It's 5:15pm here, and I'm looking forward to going home and
doing more research.

The Day job isn't AS interesting :-)

> Marji

--
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on D600 1.4Ghz 
Neuromancer 17:08:36 up 7:34, 6 users, 0.54, 0.37, 0.19