Re: cache not up to date

From: Doug Urner <>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 14:16:45 -0700

>For example, on one of our servers, a Sparc Ultra 1 with only 64 Meg
>of RAM, we process nearly 400K requests per day. This averages out to
>around 16K requests per hour, but during the day we see peaks of over
>35K requests per hour.

I've been running benchmarks in our lab using WebStone version 1.1.
With the distributed load (, which has an average file
size of 7 K and a maximum file size of 200 K Squid is able to handle
in the order of 280 connections per second on a 133 MHz P5 running
BSD/OS or 440 connections per second on a 200 MHz P6. This works out
to 1.0 million and 1.6 million hits per hour.

With this test the cache hit rate is 100%. I'd expect real life to be
worse as squid started to have to go to disk.

>I'd be curious to hear any other squid performance stats people may
>have. I'd be particularly interested to hear any comparison between
>the squid proxy and the Netscape proxy. I haven't evaluated it myself
>but was hoping someone else has.

I did some benchmarks comparing version 1.4pl2 of the Harvest cached
against version 1.12 of the Netscape cache and they aren't even in the
same league. Harvest stomped on Netscape. The best that Netscape
could do was about 70 connections per second on 150 MHz P5. The same
machine running Harvest's cached could do over 200 connections per
second. Squid seems to do a bit better yet.


Douglas L. Urner,, +1.503.231.4881
Received on Wed Jun 19 1996 - 14:19:23 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:32:31 MST