Re: large proxies

Cor,

800mb is a very high number for that sized cache.

If you want to fire your squid.con off to me privately, go for it.

Regards

adam

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Cor Bosman wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, there's also the point of improved (or perceived) quality. Im currently
> looking at Intel based dual p3 systems with say 1gb memory. The problem is
> that I cant seem to keep memory low enough. I did a test with 2.3-STABLE1
> and the process got upto 800MB. Cache size is only:
>
> /dev/sdb1 8566007 7959668 606339 93% /cache/disk1
> /dev/sdc1 8566007 7968792 597215 93% /cache/disk2
> /dev/sdd1 8566007 7952355 613652 93% /cache/disk3
> /dev/sde1 8566007 7954314 611693 93% /cache/disk4
>
> We have about 70 to 80 mbit of real traffic on our outside links. This
> on several 34mbits and 155mbits.
>
> The investment really isnt the problem. If I want a 200gb system I get a
> 200gb system. But if on a 25gb system i already see 800mb processes on
> 2.3-STABLE1, im a bit worried about a 100gb system :)
>
> Btw, on our current 2.1 system we see only 350mb processes with the same
> config. Maybe im overlooking some Linux OS issues. And yes, i ofcourse
> fiddled with all the memory saving settings :)
>
> Is anyone here running a 100gb or more cache? If so, whats your memory
> usage?
>
> Cor
>
Received on Mon Feb 21 2000 - 18:32:42 MST