Which one would be good for capacity\load? I have a very, very large environment. I have 220,000 users on 8 Gig to the INTERNET. I am running a load balancer, ipvsadm (Direct Routing) with 20 proxies behind it. I am interested in handling load.
Michael On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Amos Jeffries <squ...@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > On 18/06/2015 8:53 a.m., Michael Pelletier wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am looking to had some more power to squid. I have seen two different > > types of configurations to do this: > > > > 1. Adding workers directive equal to the number of cpus. Then adding a > > special wrapper around the AUFS disk cache so that the correct worker can > > only access the correct cache. Yes, I know rock is multi cpu capable. > > > > 2. Using the split configuration from the Squid Web page. This involved a > > front end and multiple backend squid servers on the same server. > > http://wiki.squid-cache.org/ConfigExamples/MultiCpuSystem > > > > My question is, which one is recommended? What are the pros and cons of > > each? > > > > Both and neither. #1 improves bandwidth savings. #2 improves raw speed. > Pick your poison. > > These are example configurations only. For real high performance mutiple > machines in a mix of the two setups is even better. > > Amos > > _______________________________________________ > squid-users mailing list > squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org > http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users > -- *Disclaimer: *Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
_______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
