Re: [squid-users] Multiple servers running squid

Hello Adam,

Thank you very much for spending your time with my doubts, it's very kind
of you.

Today I have one strong server (P4 2.8Ghz + 1 GB Ram + 36 GB cache total
in 4 disks 15,000 rpm scsi) for about 3,000 users (broadband), but I want
to prepare the network to serve 5,000+ users, so I'm thinking in using
this strong server as the "master squid server" and 2 more connected
direct to it as "slaves" (Gigabit port).
Do you think this arch will be nice?
I'll use Linux in all of 'em with LFUDA for cache and aufs.
Can you point me any documentation regarting this implementation?

Again, thank you VERY MUCH!

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Adam Aube wrote:

> >Is it a good idea to run multiple servers with squid in a network
> >with high traffic to spread the cpu consumption?
>
> Squid will usually run into I/O bottlenecks long before CPU bottlenecks;
> using multiple Squid servers is an effective way to alleviate this.
>
>
> >Is it better to use 3 servers directly connected to one master squid
> >server, so their cache disks are used simultaneously or each server
> >independent and just spread the traffic between 'em?
>
> A cache heirarchy (which is what the "master squid server" setup
> is called) will provide better bandwidth savings (and likely better
> response times) because servers can query other heirarchy members
> before requesting an object from the Internet.
>
> However, if these servers won't be on the same LAN, the bandwidth
> needed for the servers to communicate will likely negate any bandwidth
> savings in having a heirarchy.
>
> >Is it better to have each server running its own DNS server localy?
>
> It will eliminate a single point of failure, and if all this server
> does is serve Squid DNS requests, it probably won't add a significant
> load. I won't promise any specific benefits, but it certainly won't
> hurt (so long as the DNS server software is properly setup and secured).
>
>
> >Are there any downsides of using several servers instead of a much
> >powerfull single one?
>
> More hardware and maintenance costs. But multiple servers provide
> failover and load distribution benefits that, in large environments,
> more than outweigh these added costs.
>
> You would probably get better advice if you gave more information
> about the setup of your network and the number of users you plan
> to support.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Sep 01 2003 - 05:49:22 MDT