Edward Millington wrote: > ha ha ha. > > >>That depends on your client load and uplink bandwidth. >> >>You have a satellite uplink, right? What speed is it? And there is a >>secondary land line, or is the land link just for outbound requests? >> > > sat download. > > lan up/download. > > lan 256k symmetric > sat only <T1 on the down. no up
Oh, nevermind. This is /plenty/ for 139 dialups and a couple of wireless. >>Beware that if your client load is too high for your bandwidth, you >>might find that a lot of very low throughput, long lasting connections >>could cause the problems you're seeing--and no amount of threads will >>solve this problem. Squid with delay pools for bandwidth limiting might >>be your best bet in that case (can Oops do per-client bandwidth >> > limiting?). > > we have up to 139 stimultaneous dialup + 1 to 2 wireless connect at night > since no traffic is seen on the others. Ok, something crazy is happening on your cache--or somewhere else. 139 dialup users will never have 900+ simultaneous connections open, under any circumstances I can think of. Maybe Oops still does have some issues with Linux and threads. Hmmmm... Have you checked your logs to see if there are some virus infected hosts spewing out a few hundred reqs/minute? These could cause the thread count to shoot up some. Squid is effected as well by things like Nimda..maybe not as much, though. I don't know. -- Joe Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.swelltech.com Web Caching Appliances and Support ===================================================================== If you would like to unsubscribe from this list send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe oops-eng" in message body. Archive is accessible on http://lists.paco.net/oops-eng/
