Koji, i benchmarked using JMeter a open source tool for generating Http Requests. Since this was a controlled benchmark, i guess it would be considered synthetic. Thanks, --Kapil ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koji Hino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [squid-users] Evaluating SQUID as a Reverse Proxy for a large web site
> Hi, > > How you "benchmark" Apache and Squid? > > I mean: > > * Real environment benchmark, i.e. compare between followings with real > customers > - Get static contents from your busy (due to dynamic contents > generation) Apache server > - Get static contents from Squid, and get dynamic contents from your > Apache server through Squid > > OR > > * Synthetic benchmark such as: > - Get limited number (say several hundreds) of static contents, from > your Apache server, or from your Squid server, with benchmarking > HTTP client(s) > > I think those two benchmarks are completely different things. > > Best regards, > > ==================================================================== > Koji HINO(HINO is my family name) > NEC Laboratories America, Inc. > > From: "kapil khanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:13:43 -0600 > > :> Henrik, > :> I am using Apache as my web server. I decreased the dish cache size to 1 MB > :> and re-ran my tests. This time i got all TCP_MEM_HITS for the images and > :> static files. However my benchmark results were not better. The web server > :> still scaled much better. > :> My guess is that SQUID cannot handle concurrency too well. How do i get > :> SQUID to increase the no of processes or threads? Is my only option to have > :> many SQUID servers on different ports on a host with lot of RAM, running in > :> front of a load balancer to handle concurrency? > :> Thanks, > :> --Kapil > :> ----- Original Message ----- > :> From: "Henrik Nordstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > :> To: "kapil khanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > :> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > :> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 3:28 AM > :> Subject: Re: [squid-users] Evaluating SQUID as a Reverse Proxy for a large > :> web site > :> > :> > :> > On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, kapil khanna wrote: > :> > > :> > > I have been evaluating SQUID to deploy in front of a large web site to > :> cache > :> > > all static content (Images, JS Files, CSS Files, HTML files etc...) for > :> the > :> > > web site. I used JMeter as a load testing tool to evaluate the > :> scalability > :> > > of SQUID. This is my current config:- > :> > > cache_mem - 256MB > :> > > disk cache - 10MB. > :> > > I purposely have a very low disk cache so that i can get most out of > :> > > in-memory caching of static content. I also set content expiry (if not > :> set) > :> > > for images, JSP files etc to > :> > > 14400 80% 43200 > :> > > :> > You probably should run without any disk cache at all in this > :> > configuration. If not Squid will not actually be able to use all that > :> > cache_mem.. > :> > > :> > > Why is that the Web application scales better than SQUID? The one thing > :> > > that stands out is that SQUID is running as one process one thread, > :> > > whereas the web site is multithreaded. > :> > > :> > What kind of web server are you using? > :> > > :> > The benefits of using a cache infront of the web server is mostly seen if > :> > the web server can not handle very many concurrent connections. The cache > :> > then helps both by offloading the static content any by reusing the same > :> > persistent connections for multiple clients. > :> > > :> > Regards > :> > Henrik > :> > > :> > > :> >
