From owner-freebsd-questions Fri May 18 21:59:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ipsnetwork.net (mail.ipsnetwork.net [209.202.83.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12D137B424 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 21:59:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nvidican@ipsnetwork.net) Received: (from apache@localhost) by mail.ipsnetwork.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f4J571E28055; Sat, 19 May 2001 01:07:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from nvidican@ipsnetwork.net) Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 01:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105190507.f4J571E28055@mail.ipsnetwork.net> From: "Nathan Vidican" To: questions@freebsd.org Reply-To: nathan@vidican.com Subject: OT: how about a chance to boast about your hardware... (and help solve a problem w/ squid) X-Mailer: NeoMail 1.2.1 X-IPAddress: 209.202.83.120 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Just for the sake of curiosity, and comparasin; what are any of you guys out there running for http/web caching boxes. In specific, those which are enabled as proxies for a multitude of clients. Reason being that I find my cache to be unusally slow, though the machine it sits on shows a really low load. I'm running squid with a 1gig cachedir, seperated into 16 dirs, each with 16 inside them, (256 sub-dirs total), on an Intel Pentium Pro (512K) machine with 196megs RAM, using a 68pin SCSI UW 7200RPM disk. The system only has one NIC currently, which is connected to the 'outside' network at 100BaseTX Full duplex, on a fully switched LAN, (using Cisco catalysts). When I d/l a file through a NAT gateway (little 486dx33, 8megs RAM, 10mbit linespeed on private side (also switched) and 10mbit linespeed on public side (two nics)), I achieve anywhere from 60Kilobytes (not bits..) upward to 256+ kilobytes per second dependadant upon the site I'm connecting to. However, when I d/l the same file using the proxy server it starts out the same (maybe a little less, say 50kilobytes/sec), then rapidly drops to about 12-15 kilobytes per second (this is pertaining only to large files, >2megs like). I would prefer to utilize the cache whenever possible though, and am not yet ready to give up on it. I've been using the cache primarily for larger file downloads, and to allow the office LANs to surf the web (forces authentication on outside URLs and logs user activity). For example, I downloaded/installed kde-2.1.1 over said proxy this evening, as I am intent upon installing the same app, (and therfor having to d/l all the same files again), I'd prefer to have most of it cached on the LAN to save bandwidth. In short: I need to know if it's just the machine I'm using isn't adequate, or if maybe I should be doing something else? Just figured I'd give a shout-out and see what everyone else seems to be doing to accomplish the same type of thing. I'd be interested to know what kind of hardware configuration everyone else seems to be using (or aiming to use), weather or not anything else is run on the machine, weather or not to use multiple (possibly smaller) machines vs one large one, and basically anything else prudent. Also, any advise on wheather or not to utilize this machine for anything more than just squid or not, (currently running DNS services too). -- Nathan Vidican Nathan@Vidican.com http://Nathan.Vidican.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message