Re: Cacheoff results published.

Joe Cooper wrote:

>
> Chris at OCD worked out an extremely low license price for ICS (which is
> normally $750+ at the lowest end) with a very restrictive user #
> license. The Dart can only legally (and probably software limited)
> support 10 simultaneous users. That's how he can sell an ICS box for
> ~$700 (I don't know how he can afford to _support_ a box that cheap,
> I'll have to ask him next time I talk to him).
>
> However, with that license issue, the usefulness of being able to serve
> 120 reqs/sec is highly suspect. Therefore, Alex and Duane (and I

They really should explain this reasoning in a footnote, it is reasonable to say that 120 req/s is
irrelevant to 10 users but they need to say it

> suppose a general agreement among vendors) decided to exclude it from
> the price/performance running...the low price would have sent it through
> the roof on the price/performance chart. As much I respect Chris'
> desire to tackle the low end market with a high performance and low cost
> box, I have to agree that it isn't useful to compare price/performance
> of a 10 user limited box against boxes that are unlimited in their
> license. Even our much lower end boxes can support far more than ten
> users (in the hundreds for even our lowest priced box).
>
> Nonetheless...Let's all think about what that tells us about our goals
> for Squid. The Dart with a P200 (not PII, not Celeron..a Pentium MMX)
> with a single 5400 RPM disk and 128MB of RAM outperformed our box by a
> very small margin. Our box was a Thunderbird 800, with 3 7200 RPM
> disks, and 512MB of RAM. We couldn't handle more than 30 reqs/sec on
> hardware that size. We've got our work cut out for us, eh?

We can do it, we just need to stop trying to do 3 month fixes and do the complete rewrite from end
to end.
Received on Thu Oct 12 2000 - 05:38:12 MDT