Re: [squid-users] Performance Extremely squid configuration advice

I know about coss. it's great. but i have squid 3.1 and i think it's
unstable in 3.x version. that's correct?

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Drunkard Zhang <gongfan193_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/1/8 Mohsen Saeedi <mohsen.saeedi_at_gmail.com>:
>> and now which filesystem has better performance. aufs or diskd? on the
>> SAS hdd for example.
>
> Neither of them, we are using coss on SATA. And coss on SSD is under
> testing, looks good still.
>
>> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Drunkard Zhang <gongfan193_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2011/1/7 Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz>:
>>> > On 07/01/11 19:08, Drunkard Zhang wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> In order to get squid server 400M+ traffic, I did these:
>>> >> 1. Memory only
>>> >> IO bottleneck is too hard to avoid at high traffic, so I did not use
>>> >> harddisk, use only memory for HTTP cache. 32GB or 64GB memory per box
>>> >> works good.
>>> >
>>> > NP: The problem in squid-2 is large objects in memory. Though the more
>>> > objects you have cached the slower the index lookups (very, very minor
>>> > impact).
>>> >
>>>
>>> With 6-8GB memory, there's about 320K objects per instance, so no
>>> significant delay would yield.
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> 2. Disable useless acl
>>> >> I did not use any acl, even default acls:
>>> >> acl SSL_ports port 443
>>> >> acl Safe_ports port 80          # http
>>> >> acl Safe_ports port 21          # ftp
>>> >> acl Safe_ports port 443         # https
>>> >> acl Safe_ports port 70          # gopher
>>> >> acl Safe_ports port 210         # wais
>>> >> acl Safe_ports port 1025-65535  # unregistered ports
>>> >> acl Safe_ports port 280         # http-mgmt
>>> >> acl Safe_ports port 488         # gss-http
>>> >> acl Safe_ports port 591         # filemaker
>>> >> acl Safe_ports port 777         # multiling http
>>> >> acl Safe_ports port 901         # SWAT
>>> >> http_access deny !Safe_ports
>>> >> http_access deny CONNECT !SSL_ports
>>> >>
>>> >> squid itself do not do any acls, security is ensured by other layers,
>>> >> like iptables or acls on routers.
>>> >
>>> > Having the routers etc assemble the packets and parse the HTTP-layer
>>> > protocol to find these details may be a larger bottleneck than testing for
>>> > them inside Squid where the parsing has to be done a second time anyway to
>>> > pass the request on.
>>> >
>>>
>>> We only do http cache on tcp port 80, and the incoming source IPs is
>>> controllable, so iptables should be OK.
>>>
>>> > Note that the default port and method ACL in Squid are validating on the
>>> > HTTP header content URLs not the packet destination port.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> 3. refresh_pattern, mainly cache for pictures
>>> >> Make squid cache as long as it can, so it looks likes this:
>>> >> refresh_pattern -i \.(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|swf|htm|html|bmp)(\?.*)?$
>>> >> 21600 100% 21600  reload-into-ims ignore-reload ignore-no-cache
>>> >> ignore-auth ignore-private
>>> >>
>>> >> 4. multi-instance
>>> >> I can't get single squid process runs over 200M, so multi-instance
>>> >> make perfect sense.
>>> >
>>> > Congratulations, most can't get Squid to go over 50MBps per instance.
>>> >
>>> >> Both CARP frontend and backend (for store HTTP files) need to be
>>> >> multi-instanced. Frontend configuration is here:
>>> >> http://wiki.squid-cache.org/ConfigExamples/ExtremeCarpFrontend
>>> >>
>>> >> I heard that squid is still can't process "huge" memory properly, so I
>>> >> splited big memory into 6-8GB per instance, which listens at ports
>>> >> lower than 80. And on a box with 32GB memory CARP frontend configs
>>> >> like this:
>>> >>
>>> >> cache_peer 192.168.1.73 parent 76 0 carp name=73-76 proxy-only
>>> >> cache_peer 192.168.1.73 parent 77 0 carp name=73-77 proxy-only
>>> >> cache_peer 192.168.1.73 parent 78 0 carp name=73-78 proxy-only
>>> >> cache_peer 192.168.1.73 parent 79 0 carp name=73-79 proxy-only
>>> >>
>>> >> 5. CARP frontend - cache_mem 0 MB
>>> >> I used to use "cache_mem 0 MB", time flies, I think that files smaller
>>> >> than 1.5KB would be waste if GET from CARP backend, am I right? I use
>>> >> these now:
>>> >>
>>> >> cache_mem 5 MB
>>> >> maximum_object_size_in_memory 1.5 KB
>>> >
>>> > The best value here differs on every network so we can't answer your
>>> > question with details.
>>>
>>> Here's my idea: did 3 times of tcp hand shake, and transfered data in
>>> ONE packet is silly, so let it store locally. According to my
>>> observation, no more than 500 StoreEntries per CARP frontend.
>>>
>>> > Log analysis of live traffic will show you the amount of objects your Squid
>>> > are handling in each size bracket. That will determine where the best place
>>> > to set this limit at to reduce the lag on small items versus your available
>>> > cache_mem memory.
>>> >
>

-- 
Seyyed Mohsen Saeedi
سید محسن سعیدی