Re: [squid-users] Re-distributing the cache between multiple servers

Henrik/Amos,

Thanks for the replies. You're 100% correct in suggesting that we are
using proxy-only.

Thinking a little bit more now about the resilience we want to put in
place and the impact of one of the cache servers going down I can see
that running without proxy-only could be a great benefit to us.

Thanks again for your help.

James

2008/10/17 Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have two reverse proxy servers using each other as neighbours. The
>> proxy servers are load balanced (using a "least connections"
>> algorithm) by a Netscaler upstream of them.
>>
>> A small amount of URLs account for around 50% or so of the requests.
>>
>> At the moment there's some imbalance in the hit rates on the two
>> caches because I brought up server A before server B and it's holding
>> the majority of the objects which make that 50% of request traffic.
>>
>> I can see that clearing/expiring both caches should result in an equal
>> hit rate between the two servers.
>>
>> Is this the only way of achieving this? I'm concerned now that if I
>> was to add a third server "C" into the cache pool it'd have an even
>> lower hit rate than on A or B.
>>
>> I spent some time searching but wasn't able to find "Squid
>> administration for dummies" ;)
>>
>
> Sounds like one of the expected side effects of sibling 'proxy-only'
> setting. If squid were allowed to cache data received from their siblings
> in one of these setups, the hits would balance out naturally.
>
> Amos
>
>
Received on Fri Oct 17 2008 - 08:28:51 MDT