Re: [squid-users] fourth cache off??

fooler wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "khiz code" <khizcode@yahoo.com>
> To: <squid-users@squid-cache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:22 PM
> Subject: [squid-users] fourth cache off??
>
>
>
>>Hi all
>>i just went thru the fourth cacheoff results.. and straight away looked at
>>joe's entry!!!
>>i think it did particularly good on the hit response times and downtime
>>
> tests
>
>>however the requests/sec and the hit ratios were not exactly exciting :(
>>and i did read joe's comment ..
>>is this due to the fact that he used only 2 scsi disks and the not yet
>>
> stable
>
>>released 2.5 ???? on kernel 2.4.13
>>
>
> i think the main reason why squid's request per second is always around from
> 100 to 200 no matter how high performance hardware you are going to used is
> due to the squid's algorithm. my suggestion is that, its time to re-design
> squid. :->

Great! When do you plan to start on the rewrite, fooler? ;-)

j/k. Squid is probably due for an overhaul...And the Squid-3 discussion
has popped up a few times on the dev list--well worth reading. There's
even a design idea 'whiteboard' somewhere on the Squid site. I'll be
interested to see the final design that the guys come up with.

Don't forget that another reason the performance isn't increasing as
much as raw hardware performance might indicate is that Alex keeps
making the Polygraph workloads harder!

-- 
Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
http://www.swelltech.com
Web Caching Appliances and Support