Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:55:08 -0300 (BRT)
Adrian Chadd disse na ultima mensagem:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007, Paul Cocker wrote:
>> For the ignorant among us can you clarify the meaning of "devices"?
>
> Bluecoat. Higher end Cisco ACE appliances/blades. In the accelerator
> space,
> stuff like what became the Juniper DX can SLB and cache about double what
> squid can in memory.
>
o really? how much would that be? do you have a number or is it just talk?
> Just so you know, the Cisco Cache Engine stuff from about 8 years ago
> still beats Squid for the most part. I remember seeing numbers of
> ~ 2400 req/sec, to/from disk where appropriate, versus Squid's current
> maximum throughput of about 1000. And this was done on Cisco's -then-
> hardware - I think that test was what, dual PIII 800's or something?
> They were certainly pulling about 4x the squid throughput for the same
> CPU in earlier polygraphs.
>
I am not so sure if this 2400 req/sec wasn't per minute and also wasn't
from cache but only incoming requests ...
I pay you a beer or even two if you show me a "device" type pIII which can
satisfy 2400 req from disk
> I keep saying - all this stuff is documented and well-understood.
> How to make fast network applications - well understood. How to have
> network apps scale well under multiple CPUs - well understood, even better
> by the Windows people. Cache filesystems - definitely well understood.
>
well, not only well-understood but also well-known a Ferrari seems to run
faster than the famous john-doo-mobile - but also very well-known the
price issue and even if well-documented it makes no sense at all comparing
both
squid does a pretty good job not only getting high hit rates but
especially considering the price
unfortunatly squid is not a multi-threaded application what by the way
does not disable you running several instances as workaround
unfortunatly again, diskd is kind of orfaned but certainly is
_the_kind_of_choice_ for SMP machines, by design and still more when
running several diskd processes per squid process
again unfortunatly, people are told that squid is not SMP capable and that
there is no advantage of using SMP machines for it so they configuring
their machines to death on single dies with 1 meg or 2 and getting nothing
out of it so where does it end??? Easy answer, squid is going to be a
proxy for natting corporate networks or poor ISPs which do not have
address space - *BUT NOT* as a caching machine anymore
but fortunatly true that caching performance is in first place a matter of
fast hardware
that you can see and not only read common bla-bla I add a well-known mrtg
graph of the hit rate of a dual-opteron sitting in front of a 4MB/s ISP
POP
and I get pretty much more hits as you told at the beginning on larger
POPs - so I do not know where you get your squid's 1000 req limit from ...
must be from your P-III goody ;)
but then at the end the actual squid marketing is pretty bad, nobody talks
caching but talks proxying, authenticating and acling, even the makers are
not defending caching at all and appearently not friends of running squid
as multi-instance application because any documentation about it is very
poor and sad
probably an answer to actual demands and so they go with the croud,
bandwidth is almost everywhere very cheap so why people should spend their
brains and bucks on caching technics. Unfortunatly my bandwidth is
expensive and I am not interesting in proxying or and other feature so
perhaps my situation and position is different and is not the same as
elsewhere.
Michel
...
****************************************************
Tecnologia Internet Matik http://info.matik.com.br
Sistemas Wireless para o Provedor Banda Larga
Hospedagem e Email personalizado - e claro, no Brasil.
****************************************************
