Re: [squid-users] Re: Sun and Squid Cache

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, John Sloan wrote:

> Suns may not be the best platform for Squid, but they're not as bad as
> some people make out.

Agreed; like ANY system (Linux/x86 included) if you have a moderately "high"
request rate on your proxy then you need to configure/tune the system properly
for performance. It's too simplistic to blame the platform when it doesn't
perform "as expected".

On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 12:07:30PM -0000, Joerg Moellenkamp wrote:

> Hmm, after nearly one and a half month with a ultra enterpise 250 under
> solaris 2.6 , i think its a bad idea to locate squid on a sun ... at
> least with slowlaris 2.6... when the cachedir utilisation is well under

Apart from the previously mentioned file system problem in early patches for
Solaris 2.6, have you read through the other Solaris tips in the Squid FAQ?

  http://squid.nlanr.net/Squid/FAQ/FAQ-14.html#ss14.1

Have you dared give async-I/O a try?

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, John Sloan wrote:

> While I do agree that you need to choose space optimisation rather than
> speed on UFS filesystems when running Squid 2 on Solaris 2.6...

My Solaris 2.5.1 boxes exhibit a fair degree of indecisiveness:

  Feb 1 15:09:57 [...] unix: NOTICE: /opt/cwis/cache/dir6: optimization
    changed from SPACE to TIME
  [...]
  Feb 6 02:51:46 [...] unix: NOTICE: /opt/cwis/cache/dir6: optimization
    changed from TIME to SPACE

That's fully non-interactive - it started about the same time Squid 2.1 and
the latest Solaris 2.5.1 patch cluster was installed so I'm not sure which one
is to "blame". :-)

Also, have you checked to ensure that it's not a simple case of all your
dnsserver processes becoming busy (maybe you need to add more for when your
system hits its peak request load)? When that happens Squid has to block
requests waiting for available dnsserver processes before continuing...

Cheers..

dave
Received on Sun Feb 07 1999 - 01:51:12 MST