Thanks Ralf,
> Which kernel?
Kernel is 2.4.20-SMP (directly from Redhat 9 ).
> Squid is probably I/O bound. And due to it's architecture it cannot
take advantage of another processor.
I didn't know that.
> RAID 1 doesn't help either. Better use different disks or a RAID 0 --
after all Squid's data partitions are expendable!
> The money would have been better invested in more disks, not more
processors. Plan before you buy!
That's not so far of what I'm doing: I'm currently in the test period. Real
servers will be different (more disks with different volumes, more
powerful). I'm interested in basic performance test right now in order to
now what I have to require for my real servers ;)
> Partitions are extfs3.
>Uh, that's bound to be slow. Mount the data area for Squid noatime,
maybe in writeback mode, instead of ordered mode. That will be faster.
> Still faster are XFS and ReiserFS.
>We use this machine:
>
>Dell Poweredge (don't know which)
>2GB RAM
>Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz
>/dev/sda8 on / type auto (rw,errors=remount-ro)
>proc on /proc type proc (rw)
>devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
>/dev/sdb5 on /squid-cache0 type xfs (rw)
>/dev/sdc5 on /squid-cache1 type xfs (rw)
>/dev/sdd5 on /squid-data type xfs (rw)
>/dev/sda5 on /boot type ext3 (rw)
>Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>/dev/sda8 13G 5.7G 6.5G 47% /
>/dev/sdb5 17G 15G 2.5G 86% /squid-cache0
>/dev/sdc5 17G 15G 2.5G 86% /squid-cache1
>/dev/sdd5 17G 5.0G 12G 30% /squid-data
>/dev/sda5 69M 9.0M 56M 14% /boot
>At a real-world load (production use) of 200 connections/s it has a
load of 0.75.
You mean 0.75% of CPU Load ??? Impressive !!!
Is it 200 connection/s = 200 request/sec ??
Thank you very much,
Nicolas Chaillot
Received on Fri Jun 06 2003 - 09:35:16 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:17:17 MST