Re: large proxies

As Kendall said, its really dependant on various factors.

Purchasing a Sun E3000 and loading it up with 200Gb of disk would not be a
good return on investment, where as a Intel based Linux box with less disk
would. If the captial costs in purchasing hardware, etc, outweigh the
savings you would make on traffic and transit cost redunction, then the
use of the proxy server are misbalanaced.

Regards

Adam

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Kendall Lister wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Cor Bosman wrote:
>
> > Is anyone here running a large cache on squid? Say 100GB in disk
> > capacity. If so, what kind of system is it? It seems you need like 2gb
> > memory for such large caches. Is there any research available as to if
> > a 100gb cache is even worth it? Should we remain with something
> > smaller like 25gb (currectly). We serve several tens of thousands of
> > users.
>
> Common wisdom suggests looking at how much traffic you server rather than
> the number of users. Say you had a 1 Mb/s link and you kept it running at
> an average 80% utilisation - 100 Gb of cache would give you an LRU age of
> around 14 days, whereas 25 Gb would equate to something closer to 3-4 days
> (note: very rough figures, possibly wildly inaccurate - do the maths
> yourself :). This might well be worth the capital cost of the large hard
> drives, but each situation is different, and you need to to figure out
> your best option based on your own environment.
>
> --
> Kendall Lister, Systems Operator for Charon I.S. - kendall@charon.net.au
> Charon Information Services - Friendly, Cheap Melbourne ISP: 9589 7781
>
Received on Mon Feb 21 2000 - 15:59:00 MST