Thanks Chris, Seems IDE is powerfull enough for my environment.
Thx & Rgds, Awie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [squid-users] IDE performance > > > > >All, > > > >I just curios about UltraATA (IDE) performance, as now the high speed of > >UltraATA 133 is already exist. > > > >Does someone try to use UltraATA for big Bandwidth and high request? If > >yes, > >how big and how high is it? > > Our cache was provided by our ISP. Alongside simply caching it also handles > blacklist based filtering which I'm guessing is done via SquidGuard. > > We have potentially 130 simultaneous users on a 100Mbit switched network. > Our internet connection is provided by a 2Mbit DSL line (2Mbit up and down). > Cache spec is roughly: > > P4 1.6 Ghz > 512MB RAM > 40GB IDE HD which I think will be ATA-100 and 7200rpm > > The difference between ATA-100 and ATA-133 is negligible usually, since this > is the external interface speed. I'd look more at seek times and internal > transfer times, as seek time will possibly have a bigger effect on > performance for a heavily used cache, this is why SCSI is best for very > heavy usage since seek times are way quicker than IDE (usually!). > > You'll see big benefits if you use multiple cache disks, since often the > disk speed etc is the limiting factor with squid as opposed to CPU power. > More RAM will also help out. > > If you plan to use IDE, I'd go for a 7200rpm (or higher if they exist yet?) > drive, with an 8MB (or higher) buffer. Usually bigger disks give a better > performance due to data density on the platters but check some reviews out > first. > > Still, this all depends on the planned network on which you're cache will be > running! > > Regards, > > nry > > _________________________________________________________________ > Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. > http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess >
