Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression

2015-01-12 Thread Eugene M. Zheganin
Hi. On 12.01.2015 16:03, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote: > Hi. > > Just to point this out in the correct thread - to all the people who > replied here - Steve Hill has provided a patch for a 3.4.x that solves > the most performance degradation issue. 3.4.x is still performing poorly > comparing to the 3

Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression

2015-01-12 Thread Eugene M. Zheganin
Hi. Just to point this out in the correct thread - to all the people who replied here - Steve Hill has provided a patch for a 3.4.x that solves the most performance degradation issue. 3.4.x is still performing poorly comparing to the 3.3.x branch, but I guess this is due to major code changes. As

Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression

2014-11-10 Thread Diego Woitasen
Info added to the bug report. On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Diego Woitasen wrote: > Hi, > I have more information. The testing environment has a few users. We > switched to basic authencation and it's been working for a week without any > issues. A couple of days ago we enabled NTLM again and

Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression

2014-11-09 Thread Diego Woitasen
Hi, I have more information. The testing environment has a few users. We switched to basic authencation and it's been working for a week without any issues. A couple of days ago we enabled NTLM again and the issue appeared again. I 'm on mobile now. I'll add more info in the bug report. Regards

Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression

2014-10-25 Thread Eliezer Croitoru
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hey Diego, Can you take a look at the bug report and help pinpoint the issue please? http://bugs.squid-cache.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3997 I am pretty sure it's unique to auth only but I want to verify that external_acl helpers do not affect this issue.

Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression

2014-10-25 Thread Diego Woitasen
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Alan wrote: > I had the same problem when I tried to move from 3.3 to 3.4. Because > of this, I had to go back to 3.3. > > I don't remember the CPU being stuck at 100%, but it was certainly > higher, and the Internet browsing experience was slower. > > I don't us

Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression

2014-10-25 Thread Alan
I had the same problem when I tried to move from 3.3 to 3.4. Because of this, I had to go back to 3.3. I don't remember the CPU being stuck at 100%, but it was certainly higher, and the Internet browsing experience was slower. I don't use the NTLM helper, but I do use the Kerberos one, and also

Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression

2014-10-24 Thread Eliezer Croitoru
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hey Eugene, I will try to clear things out. Any helper is an external software but each and every one of them answers to a specific logic. external_acl url_rewrite and store_id helpers works in one way while authentication works in another. To make t

Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression

2014-10-24 Thread Eugene M. Zheganin
Hi. On 24.10.2014 17:17, Rietzler, Markus (RZF, SG 324 / ) wrote: > the important keyword is "NTLM"! > without external auth helper squid 3.4 is working well. as soon as the > external helper is active, cpu rises to 100%. nothing with workers etc. > even the fakehelper is not working. just to ma

Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression

2014-10-24 Thread Rietzler, Markus (RZF, SG 324 / )
org > Betreff: Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hey, > > What is the network load? how many users? > Have you been using workers at all in the past? > Can you see the avg requests per

Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression

2014-10-23 Thread masterx81
Same here, i'm waiting the right time to go to the customer and try the debug suggested by Amos Jeffries on 3.4.x codes to help to find where is the performance issue. -- View this message in context: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/3-3-x-3-4-x-huge-performance-regression-tp4

Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression

2014-10-23 Thread Eliezer Croitoru
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hey, What is the network load? how many users? Have you been using workers at all in the past? Can you see the avg requests per second on the cache manager page? Eliezer On 10/22/2014 09:02 AM, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote: > Hi. > > I was using the 3.

Re: [squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression

2014-10-22 Thread Amos Jeffries
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 22/10/2014 7:02 p.m., Eugene M. Zheganin wrote: > Hi. > > I was using the 3.4.x branch for quite some time, it was working > just fine on small installations. Yesterday I upgraded my largest > cache installation from 3.3.13 to 3.4.8 (same config, d

[squid-users] 3.3.x -> 3.4.x: huge performance regression

2014-10-21 Thread Eugene M. Zheganin
Hi. I was using the 3.4.x branch for quite some time, it was working just fine on small installations. Yesterday I upgraded my largest cache installation from 3.3.13 to 3.4.8 (same config, diskd, NTLM/GSS-SPNEGO auth helpers, external helpers). Today morning I noticed that squid is spiking to 100%