RE: [squid-users] Hardware Recommendations

IMHO, I can't really see only 200 workstations needing much... I run
800 users or so off one box..and to tell you the truth, I'm not even
sure what the box is. Our Novell Bordermanager cache box died one
day..and IT WAS spec'ed to the nuts with hardware (2 gigs ram, dual cpu,
15k scsi drives, etc). As a quick fix I loaded squid on an older server
we had..I THINK its a p2 400, 256megs ram, one 9gig 7200rpm scsi drive.

...and the squid is slightly faster than the Border was. And the
Bordermanager WAS tuned as well..the squid was out of the box Redhat.

just my 2 cents
Matt

>>> <sean.upton@uniontrib.com> 09/21/02 20:44 PM >>>
Good point about the multiple cache_dir lines. This is even in the
Squid
FAQ, I think... so it doe make sense to not bother with RAID for the
cache
dir. Though RAID 10 (if you can get 4 disks) might make some sense for
writing logs (perhaps overkill, though?). Going the JBOD route might
work
out well... if rack density is a concern, there are options for dense
external SCSI JBOD chassis out there in 1U and 2U config to add on to a
1U
server (from 4 to 12 external drives); this might be worth your while if
you
absolutely need a storage upgrade (in the future, not now, I guess).

Sean

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian [mailto:hiryuu@envisiongames.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 6:05 PM
To: alex@short.net
Cc: squid-users@squid-cache.org
Subject: Re: [squid-users] Hardware Recommendations

On Saturday 21 September 2002 07:54 pm, you wrote:
> I'm only familiar with hardware to scale for accelerator use, but here
> are a few tips:
>
> 1 - If you plan to log with mime_hdrs on (you likely might), dedicate
> more space for logs; I would switch the amounts you have for cache and
> logs.
> 2 - RAID 1 has high read speed, but write speed is both similar to
> a single spindle and dependant upon the caching characteristics of
your
> RAID controller. I would be concerned about having your logs write to
> another spindle set than your cache; I would also suggest RAID0 for
> cache, because if your raid gets hosed, you are not losing critical
> data, and you will get better write performance (and more space for
the
> price). I don't think that SCSI is key (not from the performance
angle
> anyway); suitable IDE raid options are out there too.

If you're considering RAID0, you might as well leave them as separate
filesystems and use multiple cache_dir lines.

That way if one drive goes, you only lose the cache on that drive. The
faster writes are really only on unitasking systems. Once you have a
bunch of concurrent users, the load will balance itself across the two
drives.

Running something like a 3ware in JBOD mode would be a good alternative
to
SCSI, although not practical in a 1u case.

> 3 - If you are running redirectors, go the dual CPU route.
> 4 - Opt for more ram if you can.
> 5 - Dual AMD is a better value proposition that dual Xeon any day, but
> cooling must be done right.

Good advice if you rely heavily on redirectors. If it's just the squid
process, the lock handling required in SMP will kill performance.

A P3 with a gig of RAM should suffice.

Like Sean, though, I deal in accelerators, so I can't really estimate
what
kind of load 200 workstations will produce.

        -- Brian
Received on Sat Sep 21 2002 - 20:43:28 MDT