Hi Steve,
----- Original Message ----- > I have a network based on L4 intercept using two squid servers that > are > currently working quite well overall, but don't have a great deal of > room to > progress given their workload and squid's limitations to do with > scalability > and TPS. > > The boxes: > > dual quad-core xeons @ 2.4Ghz > 48GB memory > 12 x 15,000 rpm 128GB drives > dual gigabit ethernet > > At present, the machines are set up with a large number of kernel > params > tweaked and the squid process caches approximately 20GB of hot > objects in > memory along with about 19GB of drive cache (proc size of 27GB). > Peak > balanced load is in the neighbourhood of 1,000 requests per second > between the > two machines, which use HTCP to peer. > > I use virtually none of the content management features. Just > caching. > > Given the HTTP 1.1 capabilities of ATS, the more efficient storage > system and > the higher scalability of the software, I'm considering moving to ATS > to get > around the painfully slow speed of squid development and the > painfully bad > HTTP 1.1 support along with lack of some features like range > requests. > > I'm aware that ATS is not a 1:1 drop-in, however it appears to do > what I need > a cache to do: serve up content quickly, with low latency, and cache > anything > that could potentially speed up the response time of the web. > > So on to the questions: > > I do not see any documentation on using the tproxy capabilities of > 2.1x, are > they available for me to test my implementation? We have only recently added the tproxy to our default builds at Apache. I wasn't aware of a lack of documentation, I guess I should have. > Are there any kernel params that traffic server likes vs. squid? > This made a > sizable difference in scalabilty in squid, FWIW. > > Can ATS make good use of so much RAM (is it 64-bit aware?) Obviously > disk > cache will not help since ATS uses raw devices in my desired > implementation. Yes (yes) and yes actually, everything helps - but raw disks are preferred over FS overhead. > Has anyone built a system with ATS to such high specs for a > forwarding proxy? > > If anyone has, are there any tips for cache freshness & retention to > share? > > Will there be a Debian package soon/ever? I'd prefer this just for > testing > purposes more than anything...! Yes, there is a Debian package following our 2.1.x releases in Debian unstable: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/web/trafficserver 2.1.9 should be available soon in sid. > Are there any benchmarks done on given hardware between Squid and ATS > with On *you* hardware? I doubt it :) > regards to content freshness, response times, scalability and overall > throughput for forwarding proxy? > > If I find that ATS does what I need it to do, I'd like to step up and > help > somehow. Perhaps documentation, as I'm no coder. FYI. \o/ Oh yeah! The current status of the documentation is: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/trafficserver-users/201105.mbox/%3C21a34ead-4fdf-4135-8281-33a090243d71@iris%3E http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/trafficserver-users/201105.mbox/%3Cfef87d19-d65c-4dac-a107-ac8c5e79ae31@iris%3E Our documentation effort can be found here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/trafficserver/site/branches/ats-cms/ It is rendered here http://trafficserver.staging.apache.org/ > Thanks for the time, should anyone decide to help me out. > > -- > --- > Cheers, > Steve o/~ i -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: [email protected] URL: http://brainsware.org/
